Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

PETITIONS

Homicide Act, 1957

Mr. Godman Irvine: I beg leave of the House to present a Petition on behalf of my constituent, Clifford Francis Winterson, for the repeal of the Homicide Act, 1957.
The Prayer is as follows:
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that the said law known as the Homicide Act, 1957, may be utterly revoked or so amended in Parliament as to restore fully the aforementioned deterrent protection of the penalty of capital punishment for each and every male and female person against any crime of murder that might be committed against any one of these persons, which protection they had and cherished before the law known as the Homicide Act, 1957, deprived and took away from them this ancient and well-established protection in law.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Nabarro: A very good Petition this afternoon.

National Health Service

Mr. Pavitt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a Petition on behalf of industrial workers in my constituency. This Petition which has been in circulation for only four days but which has over 1,500 signatures
Sheweth that considerable resentment is felt amongst the working population of Great Britain as the proposal by the Minister of Health to increase by 1s. a week all National Health contributions and to make additional

charges on all prescriptions, spectacles and dentures.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will at the earliest possible date proceed with legislation to restore the National Health Service to a position where service to all patients is free at the time of service; and to secure that all costs of the National Health Service be borne by Exchequer funds.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Nabarro: Not such a good one.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Homicide Act, 1957

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increased number of murders in recent weeks, he will consider the revision of the Homicide Act, 1957.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider amending the Homicide Act, so as to include the penalty of capital punishment for those committing murder while committing criminal sexual acts.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the need for providing for more effective punishment for those who murder with rape; and whether he will now consider immediate legislation to amend the Homicide Act so as to include killing by rape within the category of capital murder.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the operation of the Homicide Act.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am not convinced that any amendment of the Homicide Act would be appropriate at present.

Commander Kerans: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many people in this country who are living alone with families who are living


in fear of what might happen in the future? Is he also aware that there are many people who cannot leave their children unescorted after dark and that this fear is a very real and growing fear throughout the country? Only yesterday I was speaking to a British subject from Italy—[HON. MEMBERS:" Speech."]—who told me that in many cases people are restrained from coming to this country because of the crime in London.

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the natural anxiety about the state of crime. I am also aware that, taking statistics between set years, there was not a great increase in the murder rate between the years 1957 to 1960, for example, and 1953 to 1955. I am also aware that it is the duty of the Government to take every action possible, with the aid of a strong police and with the aid of the courts, to restore law and order where it is absent and to maintain it in any case. That I regard as my primary duty and in so far as it lies in my power will carry it out.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that between 11th December, when a little girl was brutally murdered near my constituency, and the end of January no less than seventeen women and girls have been murdered, the majority of whom were subject to sexual attacks? This has caused tremendous concern to mothers, who are afraid to send their children out at night. There is very strong feeling that the Homicide Act should be now amended to restore the deterrent of capital punishment for sexual attacks.

Mr. Butler: Yes, I am very conscious of the deep anxiety in relation to sexual crime. I cannot accept the exact figures of my hon. Friend, only for the reason that I am having the whole of these matters carefully analysed by my research unit. When I am in a position to give the figures exactly, I will do so. Nevertheless, we must not rely on figures. We must appreciate that there is great anxiety. The only thing I am not convinced of is the method suggested by my hon. Friend to cure this disagreeable state of affairs.

Sir T. Moore: Whilst appreciating the sympathetic attitude of my right hon. Friend may I ask him if he recalls a

statement he made at the Conservative Party Conference at Scarborough last year? He said that the primary duty of the Government was to protect the people, or words to that effect. Is he aware of the growing anger which is developing amongst the people at the failure of our Conservative Government to carry out that function?

Mr. Butler: No, I do not accept the latter part of my hon. Friend's statement. I accept that I made the statement to which he refers. The Government have taken exceptional steps to reinforce the forces of law and order, with the advice, among other things, of the Royal Commission. I am hopeful that we are beginning so to reinforce them that we shall get on top of the crime wave. I should like to feel that I have the support of the House as a whole in the undoubted efforts we all have to make together.

Mr. Fletcher: There is undoubted dissatisfaction throughout the country about the operation of the Homicide Act, both on the part of those who believe in capital punishment and on the part of those who believe in its abolition. How long does the Home Secretary think that this unsatisfactory state of affairs ought to continue before the Act is revised?

Mr. Butler: In my Answer, I used the expression "at present". I think that an art of statesmanship is to give an opportunity to see how something is working out. The few years in which the Act has been in operation have not yet given us quite a full enough idea. The second point emerges from the hon. Gentleman's statement. There are deep divisions of opinion in the House, which are not governed by party considerations, about what should be done about the Homicide Act. I am aware of most of these divisions, and I only hope that they are fully understood in the country, where they are largely shared.

Assistance to Police (Compensation for Injury)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for paying compensation to any person who suffers injury by going to the aid of a police officer.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The payment of compensation ex gratia to persons who suffer injury or loss while assisting the police is a matter for police authorities in the first instance. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that the present practice is not working satisfactorily, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Montgomery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not feel that it is iniquitous that anybody who goes to the assistance of a police officer and suffers injury as a result gets no compensation? As the Government are considering matters of this kind at present, will he reconsider his decision, because I believe that my suggestion would be of great value to the police and a great help in preserving law and order?

Mr. Butler: I have a two-fold answer for my hon. Friend. First, there is a later Question about the general question of compensation for victims of crime. Secondly, the Home Office has frequently paid police grant on expenditure incurred by police authorities in paying compensation to persons who have suffered injury. That is why I wanted my hon. Friend to bring instances to my attention in case we could apply this practice.

Motorists' Fines

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present annual cost to the public funds of police forces in the United Kingdom, including the extra cost to public funds of the recent police pay awards; how much of this total annual cost he estimates will be defrayed, percentum and in cash, by the yield this year of motorists' fines; and what increase he now anticipates in the yield of motorists' fines resulting from bringing the police force to full strength.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): It is estimated that the cost of the police in Great Britain this year will be £130 million; and that fines for road traffic offences—which are credited to the Ministry of Transport—will yield some £2.6 million, and the fixed penalty system some £35,000 My right hon. Friend feels unable to speculate on the issues raised in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. and learned Friend have some regard to the prospective additional revenue, which could be used to pay additional policemen in London and elsewhere, to be derived from the traffic warden system, which is now proving so efficacious in congested and built-up areas? Can my hon. and learned Friend give some indication of what revenue may be expected in the next few years from an extension of the traffic warden system to other congested areas in the Provinces, because this is surely a magnificent method of financing additional policemen?

Mr. Renton: As a keen statistician my hon. Friend will agree with me that better enforcement may lead to fewer offences and, therefore, less money collected by fines.

Life Imprisonment

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of a term of life imprisonment; and what arrangements he makes for retaining in custody a person convicted of murder beyond the end of a normal term of life imprisonment.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy with regard to the retention in prison for life of all individuals sentenced to life imprisonment on a capital charge.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In considering how long it is necessary to detain a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder, I take into account all the circumstances of the offence, the age and character of the offender and his development in detention, and the necessity to protect the public from any prisoner who might be a danger if released. The actual period of detention varies widely, according to the circumstances of the case, from a year or even less, if there are strong compassionate grounds for early release, to twenty years or more in exceptional cases. It has hitherto been nine years in an average case, but it may well be higher in the future in the new circumstances created by the Homicide Act, 1957.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that sympathetic answer.


As nine years has been the average, will he bear in mind that there are one or two atrocious young men such as Patrick Byrne who have committed terrible crimes in the past who will normally come out of prison in a few years' time as quite young men? They may well want restraining instead of being let loose on the public.

Mr. Butler: Yes. This is a heavy responsibility on the Home Secretary, and I will certainly bear all of these factors in mind.

Child Murders

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking for the special protection of children in the light of the recent series of child murders.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is assured by the Commissioner of Police that all Metropolitan Police officers, particularly women officers, are on the alert to protect children as a normal part of their duty, and give special attention to places where children congregate. My right hon. Friend is advised that the police elsewhere exercise a similar vigilance.

Dr. Johnson: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for his reply, may I ask him to look at this from a wider point of view only and ask his right hon. Friend to appoint a committee to consider how recent legislation has worked out—not only the Homicide Act, but also the Street Offences Act, in the manner referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) in his recent letter to The Times. Will he find a chairman for the committee with rather less whimsical ideas than Sir John Wolfenden?

Mr. Renton: It is right that I should have proper concern in this matter, but I remind my hon. Friend that, leaving aside cases in which parents were responsible for the deaths of their children, four child murders were reported in the three months up to the end of January. I am not quite sure what sort of inquiry my hon. Friend has in mind, bearing that factor in mind.

Miss Bacon: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, while one answer is more vigilance on the part of

parents, the public and an enlarged police force, nevertheless the detailed manner in which some of these crimes are reported in the Press sometimes leads to imitative crimes?

Mr. Renton: That is a matter of surmise, but I think that there is a great deal in what the hon. Lady says.

Police (Pay)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in settling the pay increases for senior police officers.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present position of negotiations with regard to pay increases for the higher ranks of the police; and when he expects to reach a settlement.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on increased remuneration for the higher ranks of the police force.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am glad to say that the Police Council for Great Britain, which is the established negotiating machinery, has reached agreement on new rates of pay for sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors; and I am making the necessary Regulations to give effect to the agreement. Negotiations are proceeding on a claim for higher pay for superintendents and chief superintendents, and a claim for higher pay for chief officers of police has been received.

Sir A. Hurd: I am sure that the whole House will welcome that statement. Will my right hon. Friend pursue agreements with the most senior officers in the force, as they are feeling rather left out of the general pay increases that have been so rightly given? Will my right hon. Friend further say whether discussions will continue on the responsibilities that these senior officers carry, as there does seem to have been some uncertainty about that?

Mr. Butler: The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is rather separate from questions of pay, but I would say in general that the matter is under consideration. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we certainly want to


conclude the negotiations with the superintendents and chief superintendents, and a claim for the higher pay of the chief officers. We shall then have completed the whole gamut, which, I hope, will really give to the police force as a whole the incentive that is so vital at the present time.

Sir T. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply. Is he aware that it will give great relief to many senior police officers who felt that the increase to the juniors was to be recouped at their expense and that this Answer alone will provide a very much happier feeling throughout the force?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Toy (Child's Death)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, at an inquest held at Harrogate on 12th October last, it was established that four-years-old Carole Ann Wilkinson was killed by a plastic dart from a plastic toy blow pipe imported from Hong Kong, which had no anti-suction device protection of any kind; and, in view of the grave danger to children from imported toys of this kind, and the increasing prevalence of accidents arising from these toys, whether he will appoint a committee to advise him on the steps to be taken to protect the lives of young children from these dangers.

The Minister of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I have seen reports of this tragic accident. I understand that this toy is no longer being sold. The Consumer Protection Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading on 27th January, would enable my right hon. Friend to make regulations prohibiting the sale of specified goods which do not comply with specified safety requirements.

Mr. Craddock: Whilst welcoming the Minister's Answer, may I ask whether he has seen a copy of the inquest proceedings, at which the doctor pointed out that in order to have saved the child's life it would have been necessary to operate within two minutes of the accident and there was not the remotest possibility of doing that? The coroner said that this was a cheap and shoddy

thing and should not have been sold in the shops. Will the right hon. Gentleman approach his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade so that the importers of this article may be contacted with a view to compensation being paid to the parents of Carole Ann Wilkinson?

Mr. Vosper: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think I can say more than that I am aware of what he has said. With regard to the second part. I will look at his remarks, but I do not think there can be a case for compensation.

Borstal. Boys (Survey)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the conclusions of an official survey by a medical practitioner that Borstal boys suffering from an incurable aversion to work should. in certain circumstances, be granted a State pension of f10 per week; how much it now costs per week to keep a boy in Borstal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Vosper: This was an unofficial survey conducted by the medical officer of a borstal on his own initiative and without extra cost to public funds. The author received permission to publish the results, and in discussing the need for further study of this problem he made an ironic reference to this possibility as a means of emphasising the high cost of institutional treatment, which for a boy in borstal is about £1I a week.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that instead of paying these moronic beatniks a pension grossly in excess of the wages received by many who have to work hard for their living, more appropriate treatment would be a diet of bread and water, accompanied by regular doses of corporal punishment?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think that I could accept all my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, but I think that he would be interested to see a copy of the article containing the statement referred to. and I will endeavour to send him a copy.

Nuclear Warfare

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of new scientific information and the confusion in the public mind as to the probable effects of nuclear weapons and their aftermath, Her Majesty's Government will make a new investigation into the biological and environmental effects of a nuclear attack on Great Britain.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. Arrangements already exist to keep our scientific knowledge on these matters up to date.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Government have seen fit to hold a public inquiry and have published the findings in a report under the name of the chairman, Mr. Holifield, and is it not more consistent with British democracy that the Government should do for our people what the American Government do for theirs?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the report, of which we have taken full advantage, and also the particular Congressional Sub-Committee hearing in 1959, but we do not find in the information anything that is not available to us already. I will certainly bear in mind the need for bringing our information up to date all the time, and will, to that extent, pay attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the degree of radioactivity in London after the dropping of a 20-megaton nuclear bomb near the centre; and to what extent civil defence organisations are equipped to deal with such an emergency.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The effects of such a bomb would depend on a number of factors, such as the height at which it was burst, and the prevailing wind. But there would be a large area of total destruction, and radioactivity would affect most of the remaining part of London. Nothing could prevent enormous casualties; but civil defence would help numbers of people to survive who would otherwise die.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Home Secretary aware that a group of scientists from

the universities has said that it would be at least 250 years before the area would be free from radioactivity and able again to be occupied? In those circumstances, are the arrangements for our civil defence adequate?

Mr. Butler: As has been observed in the Defence White Paper this year, an advance is being made in our civil defence preparations. It might not be a very big one, but it is definitely being made, and it will, I hope, also encourage local authorities such as London, who have done so much to help us and whom I hope to be able to help in my turn. I hope that we shall do our very best to warn people of 'the dangers, and to take all the steps we humanly can to deal with them ahead.

Obscene Publications (Prosecutions)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, since it became law.

Mr. Vosper: Eighty, Sir.

Mr. Cordle: In view of the spate of undesirable, salacious literature, why have not more prosecutions been instituted? Does it arise from defects in the Act?

Mr. Vosper: It is not, of course, for my right hon. Friend to initiate prosecutions. I should have thought that 80 was a considerable number. Perhaps I should add that they do not include forfeitures under Section 3 of the Act, of which there were 53. The Act has been on the Statute Book only 17 months, and I should have thought it a little early to suggest that there were defects in it.

Car Parking, Westminster

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take to protect the rights of pedestrians, in view of the persistent practice of parking cars on pavements in the city of Westminster, details of which have been forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Brixton.

Mr. Renton: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that special attention is paid, within the limits of available manpower, to the practice of


parking cars wholly or partially on the footway. In suitable cases, offending cars have been removed, and proceedings taken against the drivers.

Mr. Lipton: In particular, will the hon. and learned Gentleman impress upon those Ministers of the Crown who park their officials cars on the pavement in Cowley Street to give up this bad habit and set a better example to the general public? Why should women with perambulators be forced off the footway because of the selfish motorists in Cowley Street, Barton Street, Romney Street and Victoria Square—to mention only a few of the thoroughfares in which so many "top" Tories reside?

Mr. Renton: I should require notice of any particular offence alleged.

Censorship

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the exhibition by television authorities of X certificate films which the British Board of Film Censors has adjudged unsuitable for children, if he will now reconsider the question of an independent inquiry into the whole system of censorship.

Mr. Vosper: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend remains as yet unconvinced that such an inquiry would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the accumulating evidence, would not the Minister of State reconsider that Answer? Is he aware that this is not only a question of violence and horror on the television screen, and the extraordinary anomaly of having X certificate films being put on the television screen, but of the whole situation of having a trade censor for the cinema, a feudal form of censorship for the theatre, and no form of censorship at all on television? Surely this situation should be reviewed for the guidance of citizens, and especially for the parents of young children?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend did say to the hon. Gentleman on an earlier occasion that he would not ignore any representation made to him by the hon. Gentleman, or from any other quarter, on this Question, but he does not yet feel that an inquiry will be the right solution.

Stolen Money

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been stolen from banks, stores, messengers, and others during each of the past three years in cases known to the police; how much has been recovered; and in how many cases arrests have been made.

Mr. Renton: This information is not available. There is some information respecting the Metropolitan Police District in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police which may assist the hon. Member, and I will write to him about this.

Sir B. Janner: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the steps he is now taking to add to the police force are sufficient to cope with the situation which, in respect of the matters I have rasied, is a very serious one?

Mr. Renton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that matter arises directly out of his Question, but I can assure him that this problem to which he refers is one which engages the very serious attention of the Commissioner, and he is doing all he can to meet it.

Police Informants (Press Publicity)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the continuing difficulties in the investigation of criminal cases through the reluctance of many persons to give their knowledge of serious crime to the police because they are afraid of the Press publicity through the publication of names and addresses; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent such publication by the Press or any other body in order to encourage and safeguard those who volunteer information.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is aware of the possible dangers to which the hon. Lady refers; but, on the information before him, he is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for the legislation proposed.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the very grave concern there is about this matter? Only recently, while the police were making inquiries into a murder, when information


was given, certain sections of the Press published the name—although the person was a juvenile—the age and the address, together with the information which had been given. Does he not realise that people are scared to come forward and give evidence or information they may have because of their fear of details about themselves being published? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look at the matter again in the interests both of the police who are making the inquiries and of the people who are prepared, if protected, to give information regarding the matters being investigated?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady has drawn attention to a serious matter. Publicity which deters witnesses from coming forward is clearly against the public interest. It is to be hoped that the Press will bear this in mind. My right hon. Friend proposes to consult the Commissioner of Police about it.

Pet Shops

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions in pet shops, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Beckenham he will inquire into the working of the Pet Animals Act, 1951, with a view to the introduction of amending legislation where necessary.

Mr. Vosper: I am making inquiries about the case to which my hon. Friend refers and will write to him.

Mr. Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Penge Council quite recently tried to shut down a fairly notorious pet shop which had been exposed in the Sunday Pictorial, and the prosecution failed because of what can only be described as an absurd technicality in the law? Is he really satisfied with the present state of the law controlling pet shops?

Mr. Vosper: I cannot answer that until my inquiries are complete. There may well be a case for amending legislation. I will get in touch with my hon. Friend.

Murders

Mr. Hobson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the murders known to the police, and of the offences known to the

police which were first recorded as murder but reduced to manslaughter by the operation of Section 2 or Section 4 of the Homicide Act, 1957, in each of the calendar years 1951 to 1960 were committed by persons under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, by persons between the ages of 18 and under 21, by persons over the age of 21, and by persons whose ages are unknown.

Mr. Vosper: As the Answer includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

NUMBER OF MURDERS KNOWN TO THE POLICE IN THE YEAR STATED, LESS THOSE SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND NOT TO BE MURDER, TOGETHER WITH OFFENCES DECIDED TO BE MANS LAUGHTER, UNDER SECTION 2 OR SECTION 4 OF TH ECOMICIDE ACT, 1957


—
Age of Offender


Under 18
18,19 or 20
21 or over
Not known
Total


1951
—
7
103
14
124


1952
2
6
124
9
141


1953
—
5
126
10
141


1954
4
7
123
11
145

1955
1
5
113
14
133


1956
6
5
126
13
150


1957
7
9
145
17
178


1958
3
15
122
15
155


1959
1
10
140
11
162


1960 (provisional
3
10
149
10
172

The figures for 1960 include cases which may be found not to have been murders.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the murders known to the police and of the offences known to the police which were first recorded as murder but reduced to manslaughter by the operation of Section 2 or Section 4 of the Homicide Act, 1957, in each of the calendar years 1951 to 1960, were done in the course or furtherance of theft or by shooting or causing an explosion or in the course, or for the purpose of resisting or preventing arrest or of effecting or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody or were of a police officer in the execution of his duty or of a person assisting a police officer so acting or were by a prisoner of a prison officer acting in the execution of his duty or of a person assisting a prison officer so acting.

Mr. Vosper: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hobson: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the fluctuations since 1957 in the annual figures for (hose types of murder which were before 1957 and have since 1957 been punishable with death show any difference? Are the figures better or worse than for all the other types of murder which were punishable with death before 1957 but which have ceased to be so punishable?

Mr. Vosper: The figures do show considerable fluctuation from year to year. I think it is true to say that the figures for non-capital murder show a very slightly larger rise than those for capital murder during the years in question. My hon. and learned Friend will realise that the figures for the earlier year are in part estimates, and it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions, as he will see when he reads the figures.

Miss Bacon: Do all the figures which the right hon. Gentleman is to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT show any marked trends from which he can draw any conclusions at all?

Mr. Vosper: I was simply saying that some of the earlier figures are estimates and there are also considerable annual fluctuations. An answer to the supple. mentary question to which my hon. and learned Friend addressed himself really does not appear clearly from the figures.

Following are the figures:

1951
23


1952
17


1953
17


1954
22


1955
15


1956
30


1957
24


1958
19


1959
23


1960 (provisional)
27

In the case of murders committed before the Homicide Act it is not always possible from the information in the possession of the Home Office to distinguish murders committed in the course or furtherance of theft. The figures given for the years concerned are estimates.

Police (Convoy Duties)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation allowing police expenditure incurred

in the control of vehicles carrying abnormally large loads along highways to be charged to the owners of the loads instead of half to the taxpayer and half to the ratepayer.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. This is part of the general duty of the police in regulating traffic on the public highway, and is of benefit to other road users.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House, I think, that it is wrong in the national interest to discriminate in favour of the roads against the railways, and will he not look aft the matter again, since it appears to be an example of help being given to driving traffic on to the roads away from the railways?

Mr. Renton: There are many of these abnormal indivisible loads which could not go by railway. So far as those who use the roads for that purpose need the help of police escorts, the view has always been taken for many years that they should have the help of the police, and it is help which the police are obliged to give as part of their general duty to road users.

Pre-trial Procedures

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the accusatorial system of justice in relation to its working in recent criminal trials for capital offences.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not satisfied that there is need for an inquiry of this kind.

Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us in considering capital punishment are less concerned with the nature of the penalty, when this is clearly merited, than with the possibility that there might be errors in the course of justice? Will he look at our judicial procedures in the light not only of the Evans case but the further case particulars of which I sent to him, which has enjoyed certain publicity which I am reluctant to renew? Can he assure us on that point, because many people will be much clearer in their minds if he can do so?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend's Question covers the whole range of the system


of British justice which, instead of following the foreign model of some countries of having an inquisitorial system, is based on the system to which my hon. Friend has referred. As at present advised, I do not think that I should have an inquiry into it.

Mr. Grimond: Is this the sort of matter which might be referred to one of the committees which sit from time to time in his Department to consider this kind of thing, since there is considerable public anxiety—I share the feeling of the hon. Member who raised the question—about certain events in recent times?

Mr. Butler: I do not think there is a committee sitting at present to which it could be referred, but I will, of course, look into what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that our system provides adequate assurances that evidence collected by the police which might be of use to the defence but which is of no use to the prosecution is made available to the defence? This is a subject about which there is growing disquiet.

Mr. Butler: There is a Question by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) later on the Order Paper which will give me occasion to deal with this matter, which is a particular aspect of the subject. I did notice that my hon. Friend was really questioning, quite legitimately, but questioning none the less, the whole system of British justice.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that there is much concern not only in legal circles but among the public generally about the frequent disregard of the Judges' Rules? While this is a serious matter in all criminal cases, is it not particularly serious in capital cases?

Mr. Butler: Yes, but the hon. Member has a Question down about the Judges' Rules, which is really a rather separate matter from this, and I will, of course, answer that when we reach it.

Transportation of Wages (Security)

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the recent robbery which took place on a London omnibus,

whether he will instruct the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to consult with the London Transport Executive about security arrangements for the transportation and collection of cash for wages.

Mr. Renton: It must fall primarily to the British Transport Commission police to advise the London Transport Executive on security arrangements of this kind.

Commander Kerans: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole system of carrying wages in buses of the London Transport Executive is, to say the least, archaic, especially because the buses are open? Why could not ordinary motor transport be used and different routes be taken in order to avoid waste of public money?

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the British Transport Commission police, but there is close consultation between them and the Metropolitan Police, who are always glad to advise in response to requests for advice on the security of money and so on in transit.

Fireworks

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that there are many accidents to children resulting in severe burns from fireworks on or about 5th November every year; and if he will take powers to prohibit the sale of dangerous fireworks to the public.

Mr. Vosper: The Fireworks Act, 1951, enables my right hon. Friend to order the seizure and destruction of dangerous fireworks, and steps are taken to ensure that fireworks sold to the public are not dangerous if used according to the directions and with care. But my right hon. Friend would be glad to receive information about fireworks that are believed to have caused accidents.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 5th November this year 11 children were admitted to the Booth Hall Children's Hospital in my constituency very seriously burned by fireworks, and one child admitted, on 28th October, died as the result of such burns on 7th November? Does he agree that some very drastic action ought to be taken to prevent this annual tragedy which calls


for something more than the mere prohibition of the sale of dangerous fireworks to juveniles?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend knows that there is concern, and, in fact, I am obtaining further information from the source which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The probable result will be that the only complete solution would be to ban all fireworks. I doubt that there is any intermediate solution between the implementation of present legislation and that.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

Miss Bacon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish an official booklet in clear and simple language setting out the present law with respect to betting, gaming and lotteries.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend does not think that this is a case in which publication of an official booklet would be appropriate. It is hoped, however, to take steps to consolidate the law on these matters.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many clubs and other organisations which wish to keep on the right side of the law find it very difficult to know what the law is when confronted with a Home Office Act of Parliament like the Betting and Gaming Act? Will not he reconsider this matter so that there might be some simple booklet available to which these organisations can refer?

Mr. Vosper: Two of the principal organisations concerned have issued instructions to their own members. The Home Office has circulated all the relevant authorities and there have been at least two booklets published commercially dealing with the workings of the Betting and Gaming Act. I should have thought that sufficient information was available.

Police (Taking of Evidence)

Miss Bacon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue revised instructions as to the taking of evidence by police in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is not convinced that any alteration is called for in the practice at present

followed in this matter by the Metropolitan Police.

Miss Bacon: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the words "in the Metropolitan area" in the Question were inserted to keep within order. Is he aware that this Question was put on the Order Paper long before the Riley case? Is he further aware that I have here a report of a recent case in Yorkshire in which a woman was acquitted of theft by a jury after a signed statement had been produced admitting her guilt which she was supposed to have written in the police station? Does not this show that there was something wrong either with the course of justice or with the way in which this statement was taken?

Mr. Renton: I cannot comment on any particular case without notice, but I would remind the hon. Lady that the Judges' Rules, as supplemented in 1947 and in 1948, have been brought to the notice of all the police. It is part of their training to understand them. The police are fully aware of their responsibilities in this matter.

Metropolitan Police (Murder Squad)

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the resources of the Murder Squad of the Metropolitan Police force are adequate to meet all demands upon it in view of the increase in the number of murders which have been committed during the past three months and the consequent additional strain upon all members of the force; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: The Commissioner of Police informs me that, although his officers are hard pressed, he continues to be able to meet requests for assistance from other forces in cases of serious crime. Without further analysis, which is being undertaken, my right hon. Friend would not wish to accept the implication that there has been a significant change in the murder rate.

Mr. Lagden: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether the Home Secretary will give an undertaking that he will constantly review the strength of the Murder Squad in the interests both of the public and of the police?

Mr. Renton: Of course, with regard to any increase in the complement of the police, my right hon. Friend is always willing to go into these matters with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who is the only chief officer of police for whom he has direct responsibility.

Mr. Mayhew: Would not the prospect of deterring crimes of sex and violence increase if hon. Members were less keen to spread commercial broadcasting in this country?

Debt (Prison Sentences)

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons, male and female, were sent to gaol for debt in 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960; and what was the average length of imprisonment.

Mr. Vosper: In 1957 there were 6,962 males and 94 females so sent to prison; in 1958 the figures were 8,880 males and 160 females, and in 1959 7,366 males and 201 females. The figures for 1960 are not yet available, and figures have not been kept of the average period of imprisonment.

Miss Vickers: Does my right hon. Friend think that the figures are increasing because people have very much better earnings these days? Has he seen the report in The Times that two learned gentlemen, one in 1869 and the other in 1960, have expressed the opinion that there is a real case for the abolition of imprisonment for debt? Will he consider this, especially in view of the fact that many of these people are unemployed or are on National Assistance?

Mr. Vosper: I could not answer the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question without further information and my right hon. Friend is considering whether this should be collected. I think that the second part goes rather beyond her original Question.

Miss Bacon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cases arose from difficulties concerning hire-purchase agreements?

Mr. Vosper: I could not answer that without notice and probably without the further information which might have to be collected.

Assault, Rape and Murder

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults, rapes, and murders were known to the police during the months of November and December, 1960, and January, 1961.

Mr. Vosper: I regret that figures for January, 1961, are not yet available, and that there are no statistics of non-indictable assaults known to the police. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving for November and December, 1960, the other figures asked for.

Mr. Lagden: While anticipating the figures which will eventually be given, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Home Secretary will give an undertaking to view with an open mind all deterrents for these crimes of violence?

Mr. Vosper: I think that the answer to that is, "Yes, Sir".

Following is the information:


Offence
Number of offences initially recorded as known to the police in November and December, 1960


Attempted murder
35
3,970


Felonious wounding
358


Malicious wounding
2,149


Indictable assault
35


Indecent assault on a woman
1,393


Rape
84



Murder*
42



* These figures are subject to reclassification if the offence is later found not to be murder.

Timothy John Evans

Mr, M. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the case of Timothy John Evans in view of the fresh evidence which has come to light.

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now grant permission to Timothy John Evans' mother to receive the remains of her son for interment in holy ground in accordance with the practice of the Roman Catholic Church.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold a further inquiry into the trial of Timothy John Evans who was executed at Pentonville Prison in 1949 for the murder of his daughter Geraldine.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not yet in a position to make a further statement on these matters.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he thinks that he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. Butler: In view of the complexity of the matter, the amount of material available and the time taken by certain others to investigate this matter, it is important that I should take my own time before I make a statement.

Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I certainly recognise that this matter requires the most careful investigation on his part and that, in so far as I personally could be of any assistance to him, I should be delighted to render my assistance.

Mr. Butler: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Confessions

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increasing concern felt by the public about convictions in criminal cases, particularly murder trials, where convictions result from confessions made by the accused while in police custody, without adequate corroborative evidence of guilt; and whether he will review the existing procedure obtaining in such cases.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am aware of the views which have been expressed on this matter. The present practice of the police in relation to the taking of statements is governed by the Judges' Rules, and I am not convinced that action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member is suitable.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that, whether one believes in the retention of capital punishment or in its complete abolition, there is very considerable public disquiet about the administration of justice and, in particular, when convictions result from confessions obtained in a police

station without any corroboration? While that is serious in all criminal cases, it is particularly serious in capital cases. Will he try to exercise his responsibility to ensure that the Judges' Rules are thoroughly observed?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It had crossed my mind that this might be a matter for the Royal Commission, but hitherto it has not interpreted its terms of reference as covering this matter. I am, however, in touch with the chairman of the Royal Commission, and if the Judges' Rules are to be looked into I must reserve the position of the Lord Chief Justice. I go so far as to say that these things indicate that I regard this as a serious and important matter.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the public disquiet about the Riley case following the recent revelations concerning the Evans case, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise to ask the Royal Commission to investigate this matter?

Mr. Butler: I would want to be satisfied, because the police operate on what are known as the Judges' Rules. It is, therefore, a matter on which I think I should first consult the Lord Chief Justice, but it depends on the Judges' Rules which I am sure we all wish to see properly carried out. That is why a little care and investigation is necessary.

Prisoner, Dartmoor (Solitary Confinement)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long Prisoner No. 1, Dartmoor, has been in solitary confinement; and to what extent it is anticipated that this map's conduct will improve as a result of this punishment.

Mr. Vosper: Thirteen and a half months This lengthy segregation is not a punishment but a necessary means of protecting members of the prison staff and other prisoners from physical injury by this prisoner. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to arrange for him to be transferred to another prison where he can be allowed some association under special supervision. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I could hear neither Question nor Answer. May we have more silence?

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not rather against the conventions of the House that when an hon. Member has put down a Question on a most important subject, he should retreat from the Chamber in order to avoid calling it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for me. May we start the Answer to Question No. 48 again, please?

Mr. Vosper: Thirteen and a half months. This lengthy segregation is not a punishment but a necessary means of protecting members of the prison staff and other prisoners from physical injury by this prisoner. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to arrange for him to be transferred to another prison where he can be allowed some association under special supervision.

Mr. Driberg: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that although technically it is not a punishment, it may seem a punishment to the man concerned. While I appreciate the reason for it, may I ask whether there is any prospect or hope that this prisoner will be able to be moved fairly shortly to another place where he can associate with other prisoners?

Mr. Vosper: I intimated some months ago in the House that special provision would be made for prisoners of this type where solitary confinement would not predominate so much in the regime. This prisoner will be one of the first to be moved.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not disturbing and startling that in our prisons today a man can be kept for over a year in solitary confinement, no matter what the circumstances? This is startling new information and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that we should make different arrangements. Is it not appalling that people who are criminal but not lunatic should be kept for over a year in solitary confinement?

Mr. Vosper: I have said that we are making different arrangements. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman saw the record of this prisoner's fights against fellow prisoners as well as staff, he would appreciate the reason for this action.

Visas

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the principles on which he acts in granting and in refusing visas to persons desiring to visit this country; and what means of appeal there are from his decision to refuse a visa.

Mr. Renton: A visa to visit the United Kingdom is normally granted unless the applicant is personally unacceptable or there are reasonable grounds for concluding that he would not be willing and able to leave this country at the end of the permitted period of stay. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to a Question on this subject by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) on 9th February.

Mr. Hughes: Would it not be reasonable to administer this branch of a Government Department in a way which would enable potential visitors and guests to plan in advance? The fact that this is not done causes a great deal of inconvenience.

Mr. Renton: So far as possible, we attempt to administer this policy in a way which will enable people to plan in advance. If the hon. Member has any case in mind in which that has not happened, perhaps he will be so good as to let me have particulars of it.

Alice May Drury

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the sentence imposed on Alice May Drury, a prisoner in Holloway prison.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered this case in the light of the representations made to him by my hon. Friend. His conclusion is that he would not be justified in recommending any interference with the sentence which the court thought it right to impose and with which the Court of Criminal Appeal found no reason to disagree.

Mr. Fell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that before putting this Question down I gave it much thought because it might set a bad precedent if every hon.


Member put down Questions concerning every prisoner. On the other hand, in this case there are somewhat extraordinary circumstances. It was described as "a most tragic case" when it came up before the judge. Many counsel were of the view that the sentence imposed might well not have exceeded two or three months, whereas the sentence which was imposed was two years. Because this unfortunate middle-aged woman, who had never committed any crime before, was advised to appeal, she lost 63 days remission. Although I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend's right hon. Friend's judgment, I would nevertheless ask my right hon. Friend whether he will appeal to his right hon. Friend as to whether he will temper his judgment with mercy in this case. I appeal to him sincerely, particularly in view of the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a personal case.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but the question is rather long. Perhaps the hon. Member will bring it to an end.

Mr. Fell: If I may humbly beg you on this occasion, I have heard a number of personal cases raised in this House and, owing to the fact that they are personal cases, I have always thought there was some latitude allowed. It is very difficult to convey the circumstances of a personal case of this nature to the House unless one tells the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will bear in mind that one of the objects of Questions is not the giving of information. That is not what they are for.

Mr. Fell: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, for keeping you in this instance. I would merely ask my right hon. Friend to ask his right hon. Friend if he will please reconsider this case. If he wants any further information I shall be glad to see him about it.

Mr. Vosper: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a particularly tragic case. No additional information has come before my right hon. Friend which was not before the court or the Court of Criminal Appeal and there is, therefore, no basis on which my right hon. Friend

can intervene. Nor has he any discretionary power to reverse a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal about the time spent as an appellant. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to accede to my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Fell: As my right hon. Friend has already told me he has discretionary powers in this case but does not feel that he can exercise them, the answer I have been given is wrong. I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

MILK STORAGE TANKS

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that farmers who wish to install bulk milk storage tanks have found that such tanks manufactured by different firms in different parts of the country and made of different materials are offered for sale at exactly the same price; and whether he will ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the President of the Board of Trade to investigate the matter with a view to referring it to the Monopolies Commission.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have seen Press reports to this effect. If there is evidence of an agreement between suppliers that should be on the Register of Restrictive Trade Agreements, it should be sent to the Registrar for consideration. Reference to the Monopolies Commission does not seem to me to be appropriate.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Prime Minister aware that this practice penalises the most progressive people and that in the United States people are sent to jail for doing things like this? Can he say anything which would discourage people from indulging in these restrictive practices?

The Prime Minister: I understand that in the United States, as in this country, people are sent to prison for breaking the law of the land. I merely suggest that this should be more a matter for the Registrar, because it is prima facie a question about a possible price agreement. That comes under restrictive practices.

COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government that he and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should participate in political discussions with heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers of the Six.

The Prime Minister: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to facilitate and improve political co-operation between European countries in every way. Accordingly, if we were to receive an invitation from the Six Governments to take part in meetings with them for the purpose of political consultation we would certainly be disposed to accept it.

Mr. Henderson: Will not the Prime Minister agree that the difficulties which prevent this country from joining the Common Market do not apply when it comes to the closest possible political co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Six?

The Prime Minister: I think that that follows from my reply.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he proposes to discuss the effect of the economic situation in the United States of America and the United Kingdom on the problem of unemployment in Great Britain, during his coming visit to the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: As I have said before, I hope to discuss with President Kennedy all the international problems that confront us. These naturally include a number of aspects of the world economic situation.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are now over 5 million unemployed in the United States and that this will result in a decreased demand for British goods? Is he aware that American citizens in this country are now being advised by the American Government not to buy British motor cars? Will the Prime Minister respectfully suggest to President Kennedy that however grave is his problem in America,

we will not be pleased if he exports it here?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely the point that the world economic structure must be considered as a whole, and what is done in other countries has a tremendous effect upon our position.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman is to have talks on the economic situation, both here and in the United States and, probably, elsewhere, will he also take into account the desirability of discussing the effect of American action on British shipping, even if the discussions are confidential? I do not mind as long as the right hon. Gentleman has the discussions.

The Prime Minister: As I said a day or two ago, that had not escaped us.

Mr. C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of discussing with President Kennedy the possible reduction of quotas and tariffs in both countries so as to bring a little more competition into both economies and give greater efficiency?

The Prime Minister: All these things are relevant, but I must be careful not to discuss these matters with Members of the House. I am supposed to be discussing them with President Kennedy.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now name the date on which he proposes to meet President Kennedy.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 14th February.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) has been placed in an invidious position by certain investigations in this country and that although there is a certain humorous irony in the case, nevertheless an important principle is involved in this noxious practice? Will the Prime Minister raise the matter with President Kennedy?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite understand how that has to do with the date of my visit.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister when he will announce the names of the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what I said on 14th February.

Mr. Lipton: Is not that a rather disappointing reply? Is the Prime Minister aware that the employees of Odhams, quite a number of whom are constituents of mine, strongly object to being bought and sold like livestock at the bidding of Press tycoons and that they are getting a little anxious about the continued delay in getting on with the job, first, of appointing a Royal Commission and, secondly, ensuring that it will report in the near future? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect of when he will be able to persuade these unwilling people to join the Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: It takes a little time to get the people I particularly want to get. As I have said before and as, I think, the House understands, the Royal Commission is not connected with this particular transaction.

Mr. Wade: Is the Prime Minister in a positon to give any indication of the length of time that the deliberations of the Royal Commission will take? Is it his intention to confer with the chairman when appointed as to a possible timetable?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope to make a statement as soon as I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHER EDUCATION (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Willey: asked the Prime Minister why the membership of the Committee of Inquiry into higher education does not include a representative of the teacher training colleges.

The Prime Minister: The members of this Committee have been appointed in their personal capacity and not on a representative basis. In fact two of

them have a close knowledge of the work of the teacher training colleges.

Mr. Willey: Has the Prime Minister read the letter in The Times today signed by a large number of distinguished educationists? In view of the feeling that the training colleges will not have an adequate voice in the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter and consider extending the membership?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am sure that Lord Robbins and his colleagues will give the training colleges every opportunity of presenting their views and that their inquiry over the whole field will be both searching and impartial. In particular, Sir Philip Morris and Mr. Elvin have considerable experience in this.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister look at the matter again? This is a fairly representative Committee, and to have left out of the membership any present member of a teacher training college, when these establishments are of such tremendous importance to the development of higher education, is, surely, rather unfortunate.

The Prime Minister: I still feel that in these committees it is better to appoint people on their personal experience rather than as representing various interests.

Dr. King: As the question of the status of training colleges is one of the most important in higher education in the years ahead, will not the Prime Minister have another look at the question?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I will consider it. It was, however, the particular wish of Lord Robbins that the Committee should be kept reasonably small. I feel that it is better to get a really good Committee and then to take evidence from all who are interested.

Mr. Willey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when he refers to the personal quality of the members of the Committee, it is rather unfortunate that a very important section of further education is excluded from membership?

The Prime Minister: I still find it rather difficult to explain the difference between selecting people on a representative basis and on a purely personal basis.
I think that this is a very good Committee and I believe that its report will be found to be a fine one.

At the end of Questions—

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Victor Yates: On a point of order. The next Question on the Order Paper is a Question I was prohibited from putting. When I consulted the Table I was told it was not possible for me to put down this Question concerning a man who was under sentence of death. In view of the fact that if I had put the Question down it would have been reached before the Prime Minister spoke today, is it not reasonable to ask whether there is some means whereby an hon. Member who is prohibited by the Chair from putting a Question down has some priority when the Question finally comes before the House? I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Home Secretary has 25 Questions down today unanswered and he will not be answering Questions again until the end of April. Is this really fair to an hon. Member who has given ample notice of a Question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has been in the House a long time, and I am afraid he knows that, in these circumstances, when the Question is not reached I cannot help him.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. Apart from the merits of the Question, is it not the case that if an hon. Member goes to the Table and submits a Question and if, subsequently, in the course of the next hour or so the Table discovers that the Question is not appropriately phrased, or may be out of order, and an amendment is suggested—as does happen—that Question does not receive the priority which is deserves and some other Question which comes subsequently before the Table receives the priority? Is not that the reason why my hon. Friend's Question was lower in the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am informed that that is not so and, without giving judgment about any hypothetical situation, I think we might be in the gravest difficulties if we defined the order of Questions by considerations of that kind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—Supply [5th Allotted Day]:
Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments Vote on Account, 1961–62.
A debate will take place on Fuel and Power.
Also, the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which we do not propose to take tonight.
TUESDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—Report and Third Reading of the Land Drainage Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY—Completion of the Committee stage and remaining stages of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Bill [Lords].
Report and Third Reading of the Trusts (Scotland) Bill, and of the Local Authorities (Expenditure on Special Purposes) (Scotland) Bill, until seven o'clock.
At seven o'clock, consideration of private Members' Motions.
THURSDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY—COmmittee stage of the National Health Service Contributions Bill.
FRIDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be a debate on Defence on a Government Motion inviting the House to approve the White Paper.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that Wednesday's business, which is a rather long list of Orders of one kind or another to get through by seven o'clock, is a trifle unrealistic? Supposing that he does not succeed in getting all this business completed by seven o'clock, when Private Members' Motions are to be considered, is it proposed to return to public business after ten o'clock?
May we assume that there will be a second day's debate on Tuesday, 28th February, on defence?

Mr. Butler: Wednesday's business is not very controversial. We are lured into dividing our business into controversial and non-controversial matters. No final decision has been taken on the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. namely, post-ten o'clock.
I do not know whether a second day will be necessary for the debate on defence, but I suggest that we discuss that through the usual channels.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although business may not be controversial it may, nevertheless, be exceedingly important? I am sure that a number of my hon. Friends will wish to make their views known, particularly on the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make a statement in the House of Commons on the Government's new housing policy so that hon. Members can question him?

Mr. Butler: I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if Government business on Wednesday is not completed by seven o'clock we should use up part of the private Members' time?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The arrangement for private Members' time was deliberately made and it should be reserved for private Members.

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the recent grave events in the Congo, he will be able to find time soon for a debate on the Congo situation?

Mr. Butler: I have already mentioned this matter to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The whole matter is at present very much in the hands of the United Nations. I will reaffirm to him that there has been a request for a debate and discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Fell: My right hon. Friend will have seen a Motion on the Order Paper on Northern Rhodesia.

[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government in considering the constitutional future of Northern Rhodesia to maintain the basis of non-racial representation, laid down by Her Majesty's Government in 1958, within the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.]

Could he tell us whether there will be a statement on the Conference very shortly?

Mr. Butler: That matter is governed by the fact that the Northern Rhodesian Conference is still sitting. It is impossible to make a statement during the sitting of the Conference, because the matter has not yet been brought to finality. But it is our wish that a statement should be made to the House at the earliest opportunity consistent with what I have said.

Mr. Callaghan: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement is awaited with even graver anxiety in Northern Rhodesia than in the House? In the concluding stages of these negotiations, would the right hon. Gentleman represent that it is vitally important that an agreement, if such can be reached, should enable delegates to the Conference to return to their country knowing that they can carry their people with them?

Mr. Butler: That does not strictly arise on business, but I can say that I believe it is the wish of all of us that this Conference should reach a successful outcome which should be to the satisfaction of all the people of Northern Rhodesia and accepted by the House as a fair and honourable settlement.

Mr. Bowles: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know now, can he say whether he will know this time next week how many hon. Members who have signed the Motion mentioned by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) have been the guests of Sir Roy Welensky in the last six months?

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. Time and again there have been smears against certain hon. Members on this side of the House from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). Can we not be protected, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate it now, and all observations in the form of questions from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) were wrong, as this is really business time.

Mr. Paget: Is it not against order to pass reflections upon a head of State or upon the head of a Commonwealth State, as was the case when the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that a suggestion that somebody is a friend of Sir Roy Welensky is a smear?

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that it is the view of the House, and it is my view, that unless we are careful to confine questions at business time to questions on business we shall allow them to run altogether too wide.

Mr. Fell: This has happened on at least six occasions in the last six weeks or three months, each time involving the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). On each occasion there has been a slur on certain hon. Members, not confined to this side of the House, and it has not been answered on a single occasion. I hesitated myself to get up because I hoped that another hon. Member would rise and defend his fellow Members.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the general enthusiasm of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but no amount of enthusiasm makes this a topic relating to business.

Mr. M. Stewart: Arising out of the last question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask whether the Leader of the House would notice that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government pursued the unusual course of presenting a White Paper on a major topic without any statement to the House?
Would the right hon. Gentleman take note that there is considerable feeling that we ought to have an opportunity to debate the general principle set out in that White Paper before we proceed to a Bill, because before we proceed to a Bill it will be desirable to have the reactions of local authorities? Failing anything else, could the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that he should take advantage of

the few moments during which he will take to present the Bill, in a few minutes' time, to make a statement about the plan?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that that possibility will arise, because of lack of notice, but I have said that I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend. We had better leave it at that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If business which the Government class as unconstitutional—[Laughter.]—business which the Government class as uncontroversial is in future to be deemed such by the Opposition, and if, in consequence, debates are likely to be protracted to the extent that the duties of hon. Members about this building and elsewhere are likely to be disrupted, will the Government respond to that situation by introducing a time-table Motion on such business?

Mr. Butler: There are respectable precedents for time-table Motions, but they are always entered into with regret and they are not entered into lightly. We do not propose to enter lightly into any such arrangement, particularly since the right hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. G. Brown) has said that, while there is no doubt that there will be full discussion on Wednesday, it is not a subject which arouses great ire or anger, but rather interest.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would considerably facilitate Parliamentary business if he were able to devote personally a little more time to his duties as Leader of the House? For that reason, would he not consider resigning his positions as Home Secretary and chairman of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with business.

Mr. Gaitskell: On the proposed debate on the Defence White Paper, is the Leader of the House aware that it has been the custom for many years to have two days for discussion on the White Paper? Although this document this year is more than usually inadequate and devoid of any information, that, in our view, does not justify limiting the debate to one day.

Mr. Butler: The practice in announcing business is to announce


business for Monday week, which I have done. We would prefer, I think, that the debate should be for one day, but I shall have this matter discussed.

Dame Irene Ward: When are we likely to have legislation dealing with Cunards'? Can I have an assurance that before legislation is introduced we shall have a day to debate the problems of shipping. shipbuilding and ship repairing so that we shall have an opportunity to discuss them before we discuss that legislation?

Mr. Butler: At this stage I can only note my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members will support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for an early debate on the Congo, and that there is already a Motion on the subject on the Order Paper?

[That this House expresses its abhorrence at the murder of Mr. Patrice Lumumba and his colleagues and calls upon the United Nations Organisation which, at the request of Mr. Lumumba as head of the Congolese Government, was made responsible for maintaining law and order in the Congo and for eliminating all external intervention in its affairs, to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice; further condemns Her Majesty's Government for its failure to take effective action through the United Nations to check the blatant intervention in Congo affairs by foreign nationals and particularly the Belgian intervention condemned by the United Nations special representative, Mr. Dayal; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support the following demands in the United Nations; the withdrawal of all Belgian personnel from the Congo, the disarming and disbanding of all military units except those under the command of the United Nations, the recall of the Congolese Parliament for the purpose of appointing a new Prime Minister acceptable to the majority of the Congolese people, and the maintenance of taw and order by the United Nations until a new government, appointed in conformity with the constitution, is able to function effectively.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right that this awful tragedy, for

which we have collective responsibility [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense:]—in view of the actions of the United Nations and the actions of the Government therein—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—should be played out without a word being said in this House?

Mr. Butler: I cannot add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg).

Sir P. Agnew: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Government will make a statement or issue a White Paper on the constitutional affairs of Malta?

Mr. Butler: When we are ready we shall do so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we are likely to rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. By the usual date, with our business thoroughly completed.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the War Office is embarking upon a wholesale programme of altering and closing some of its depots in this country, including supply reserve depots, one of which is in my constituency? Would he consider having a general debate on this topic?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has brought in a subject which is of burning importance to him in the guise of a business question. All I can do is to examine it, now that he has given me notice.

Mr. Thorpe: On the question of the Motion on Northern Rhodesia, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many hon. Members who feel that while the Colonial Secretary is engaged in this very difficult and delicate task, which we all hope will be a success, the least these matters are publicly debated and varying points of view canvassed the easier his job will be?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is bearing up very well in his arduous responsibility. It is clearly a matter which is beyond my control, but when hon. Members put Motions on the Order Paper I do not think that Motions should be confined to one particular point of view.

Mr. C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that, no matter what pressures he is subjected to through any of the usual channels about next Wednesday's business, private Members' rights will not be infringed, for three good reasons? First, because it would infringe on the rights of private Members; secondly, because we shall be discussing an important matter in private Members' time; and thirdly, it is my time.

Mr. Butler: I have my hon. Friend's point of mind. In general, I can assure the House that during the last year or so we have deliberately given more time to private Members. It is not our intention on this occasion that there shall be an erosion. It is not our policy that there should be an erosion of private Members' time.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend confine the defence debate to one day, if only out of kindness to the Leader of the Opposition and that section of his party which supports him?

Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House be able to make an official statement today on the state and condition of the Chief Patronage Secretary?

Mr. Butler: The Chief Patronage Secretary seems in better health than ever.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING

Bill to make further arrangements for the giving of financial assistance for the provision of housing accommodation, to confer further powers on local authorities as regards houses let in lodgings or occupied by more than one family, and houses or other buildings affected by clearance orders and demolition orders, to amend section five of the Rent Act, 1957, by allowing a greater increase in the permitted rent for improvements, to alter the circumstances in which improvement grants and standard grants may be made under Part II of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, and the Housing and House Purchase Act, 1959, to amend the law with respect to repairing obligations in short tenancies of dwelling-houses, and to amend the Town Development Act, 1952, as regards development carried out wholly or partly in a county borough and as regards the assistance which may be given by a county council for town development; and for purposes connected with any of those matters, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, the Attorney-General, Sir Edward Boyle, and Sir Keith Joseph: read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

RULING BY MR. SPEAKER (DISSENT)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move,
That this House respectfully regrets and unhesitatingly dissents from the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker that a question sought to be put down by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asking the Secretary of State for the Hotre Department to order an inquiry into whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in the case of George Riley was not in order; and expresses the view that this Ruling is not in accordance with the precedents and practice of this House and imposes new, unnecessary and undesirable limitations on the ability of hon. Members to discharge their public duties.
I want to say two things before coming to the main burden of my argument. The first is that although this Motion is, as it must be, in terms of a Motion of censure on yourself, Mr. Speaker, it is, I think, clear to you, and to all of us in the House, that no sort of reflection is intended upon the good faith of the Ruling to which exception is taken, and that the Motion was put down, at any rate in part, knowing that you, Sir, would have no objection to our so doing.
I would like to call the attention of the House to two passages in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Out Of Which this Motion arises. Both report your words, Mr. Speaker. The first is:
It is because of the very considerations which the hon. Member was mentioning that I think that this is an important point and I have accordingly considered it with the greatest possible care. It would be in no sense unwelcome to me if the House chose to take the opportunity some time to consider whether my interpretation of the existing practice is right and whether this Ruling is right. However, I am afraid that I have considered the matter very carefully, and I do not think that further representations would cause me to change my mind about it.
By that, I apprehend that you meant the representations made then and there on that occasion, Mr. Speaker.
Replying to a question raised later by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) you said:
Personally, I should welcome it in every possible way if the House sought in proper time to challenge this my Ruling so that we might know the precise definition of the practice of the House about Questions pending the execution of a capital sentence. All these considerations do not, however, cause me to change my view about what the rule of the House is. Believing it to be such as that on

which I have acted, I am bound to rule as I have done. Of course, no considerations of this kind arise later. They arise simply in the period pending execution of the sentence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 218–20.]
We were all grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, first, for indicating that the course I am now pursuing was the proper course—I do not want to involve you in argument any further—but not altogether unwelcome, as this is a difficult subject about which there have been different Rulings on different points of order. In the second place, we are grateful to you for making it clear what exactly the challenge is about.
I wish to make it clear at the outset.—and this is the first of my two preliminary observations—that no one complains about the Ruling that Questions, pending the execution of a capital sentence, to the Home Secretary about the exercise of the prerogative of mercy are not called. That is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is whether the particular Question which I sought to put down was or was not an infringement of that rule—whether, in other words, to rule that it was an infringement of the rule was not, in effect, to extend the Ruling into an area where it had never previously been applied, and where, in my humble submission, it does not belong.
The House will have noticed that there is an Amendment to the Motion, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end and to add:
 upholds the well-established rule under which in any case involving a capital sentence the circumstances on which the exercise of the prerogative of mercy depends should not be made the subject of question or discussion in this House while the sentence is pending ".
I hope that I shall not be thought offensive if I say that I regret that Amendment. I do so for two reasons, and there may well be others. First, three of the four right hon. Gentlemen who have put their names to the Amendment are Ministers who have administrative responsibilities which might be the subject of challenges of this kind. One would have thought, therefore, that, if there had to be an Amendment, it would have been better put down in the names of some right hon. or hon. Members who were not personally affected by it in the administration of Departments.
The second reason why I regret this Amendment is that, with the greatest respect, it begs the question. If the House were to reject my Motion, and accept the Amendment, all that it would be doing would be evading and not answering the questions which are in your mind, Mr. Speaker, and in the minds of all of us. It would mean that the House would express no opinion at all about whether your Ruling did extend the area of that prohibition or whether it did not.
What the Amendment does is merely to restate in its most extreme form the formulation of the rule made eighty or ninety years ago which appeared again for the first time as an incidental part of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's Ruling on the point in 1947, and which you, Sir, referred to in the course of your own Ruling in the instant case. If it were to be done, we still would not know whether the Question that I sought to put down was or was not an infringement of what the Amendment describes as
the well-established rule under which in any case involving a capital sentence the circumstances on which the exercise of the prerogative of mercy depends should not be made the subject of question or discussion in this House while the sentence is pending.
I have already made it clear that on this Motion that is not in issue. There are many of us who do not like this rule. There are many of us who would like to change it, to limit it, to modify it, or possibly to abolish it altogether, but that is not involved in your Ruling. What is involved in your Ruling is what does it mean and does it extend so far as you seemed to me to have extended it on that occasion.
There is one other preliminary comment. What is ultimately involved here is the sovereignty of Parliament. If this interpretation of the rule is correct, and if the present Home Secretary persists in his present practice of refusing all explanation, even after a capital sentence has been carried out, then at no time, before, during, or after a capital sentence, has this sovereign House of Commons any power to intervene or any right to be heard.
One has only to put the proposition in that form to persuade all of us that this is a matter to be approached with the greatest anxiety and the greatest care,

because it would mean that in the operation of our criminal law that part of our penal code which is most severe, most irrevocable, and which causes most public distress and most public anxiety, the determination of the question, life or death, is not in the hands of any court, but is in the sole arbitrary discretion, exercised in secret, of the Home Secretary, without appeal and without responsibility. That is why I say that when we approach this question we must remember that what is involved is the sovereignty of the House of Commons itself.
It is not a new thing in our constitutional history for great questions of principle of this kind to arise in individual, limited cases. A nameless, humble person, someone who never would have thought to take his place in history, but for the events in which he became involved, becomes, as it were, the centre at which great constitutional principles are resolved and established or perhaps extended. That is so here. It is true that the exercise of our sovereignty can be done effectively only in so far as we preserve our own rules. Those rules are guide-posts to help us along the way. They are not a barbed wire fence to keep trespassers off the ground.
I want to say one other thing which, I hope it will be accepted, I say without offence to anyone. All of us who have been here more than a short time have overwhelming cause to be grateful to the Clerks at the Table for their courtesy and their help in a great many ways. We could not do our work without their assistance, without their co-operation and without their courtesy.
Having said that, I want to add something. The Clerks at the Table act in a consultative and advisory capacity. They exercise no judicial function. They have no right to decide any question. If it occurs to them when a Question or Motion, or anything else, is presented at the Table that in some way it transgresses or offends against a rule of order or an established convention or practice of the House, we are all grateful if they point it out to us, and, if they persuade us that that is so, then we are glad to comply with the advice which they give us. But if they cannot persuade us that it is so, then their business is not to decide it for themselves and treat you, Sir, as if you were some kind of court


of appeal from a court of first instance. Their business then is to refer the disputed Question or Motion to you.
That was not done in my case—and I shall come to the instant case in a moment—and it was not done in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who put down a Question, a general Question having nothing whatever to do with this case and to which no objection was taken. It was accepted and my hon. Friend heard no more of the matter until the next morning, when he found that it was not on the Order Paper. It was only at that stage that he came to you, Mr. Speaker, and ultimately, as one would have expected, the mistake which had been made was corrected.
What I am saying is that that is not how the House should operate its procedure. My hon. Friend's Question was accepted and, if there was a change of mind, the proper practice was to draw my hon. Friend's attention to it. If the Clerks had satisfied him, that would have been the end of the matter, but if not, it should have been referred to you. I think that it is important to make that clear.
How does this matter arise? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) referred at the end of Questions today to his Question No. 51 on the Order Paper today. It was not reached for Oral answer. That Question was almost in the form and precisely of the substance of the Question which I sought to put on the Order Paper last Tuesday week. If my Question had been held to be in order, it would have appeared on the Order Paper for last Thursday and it would have been answered some time after 2.30 p.m. on that day.
It was a Question which asked for an inquiry to see whether there had been any miscarriage of justice in the case of one, George Riley. George Riley was executed at eight o'clock in the morning last Thursday, so that, had the Question been held to be in order, it would have been answered by the Home Secretary a week ago in circumstances which, at that time, could not possibly have given rise to any question about whether it was in order or not, because the capital sentence by that time would already have been executed.
Whether that is a point of substance or not, I do not propose to inquire. I mention it for the completeness of the record and for no other reason, because I think that it would be a pity if the general question of principle with which we are faced this afternoon should be in any way embarrassed by being decided on a slightly technical point arising out of times and dates. Therefore, I leave the point, having just mentioned it.
What you held, Sir, and what is challenged, was that a Question which did not refer to a capital sentence, or any sentence, asking for an inquiry to see whether there was any possibility of a miscarriage of justice was in some way an infringement of the rule which lays down that Questions cannot be asked about the prerogative of mercy. It was not a Question about the prerogative of mercy. Mercy begins where justice leaves off, and, until it is established that there has not been a miscarriage of justice, the question of the exercise or the non-exercise of the prerogative of mercy cannot possibly arise. That was my submission. but you, Sir, held that, nevertheless, the two things were so closely associated that to ask about an inquiry necessarily involved, by implication at least, the question of the royal prerogative.
I think that I understand the machinalia of that decision very well. I think that the reasoning behind it is something like this. Suppose a Question was on the Order Paper, and the Home Secretary was of the opinion, or could be persuaded, that there might have been a miscarriage of justice, or, at any rate, that there was a sufficiently prima facie case to justify him in ordering the inquiry which, administratively, he has full power to order. Then, it is said, I imagine, in that case, we cannot conceive that any Home Secretary who came to such a conclusion would not postpone the execution until the inquiry was over, and such a postponement might well amount to a reprieve.
I am not concerned to dispute that proposition. What I do say is that the mere fact that, as an incidental result of a Question about something else, the Home Secretary is led to advise a reprieve does not make the Question about something else a Question involving the exercise of the Royal


prerogative, and, in other respects, that is the long-established practice of the House, as I hope to establish in a moment.
In ruling that the Question was not in order, the Table, and I think you, Sir, had to rely, in the first place, upon the passage in Erskine May at page 358 of the Sixteenth Edition—the last two sentences in the first paragraph. One says:
A question with regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in connection with persons sentenced to capital punishment is not in order.
Then, there is a reference (p), and the footnote to that reference shows a whole series of occasions when that rule has been applied, and, of course, the rule is not in question. The next sentence says:
A capital sentence cannot be raised in a question while the sentence is pending.
That is a little ambiguous, because, of course, the Question did not raise the capital sentence or any sentence, but I imagine that, since otherwise the two sentences could mean exactly the same thing, it was supposed that there must be some difference between them, and that, therefore, what was intended to be covered by the second sentence was something not already covered by the first.
If we confine our attention only to the two sentences in the text, there may be some plausibility in that view, but when we notice that there is a reference to a footnote (q), which contains only one authority, and that authority is an authority which quite expressly states that it relates to the prerogative of mercy, it becomes, I submit with great respect to you, Sir, and the House, perfectly clear that the second sentence is only referring, as the first sentence refers, to Questions affecting the capital sentence and Questions affecting the exercise, or the advice given by the Home Secretary to the Crown about the exercise, of the Royal prerogative.
That was, I suppose, a formidable difficulty, but there were things in the previous Rulings which might have lent some colour to it, and you, Sir, in your Ruling, relied upon them. You referred to the Ruling of your predecessor on 10th March, 1947, itself a Ruling in answer to a submission by myself aris-

ing out of the well-known Gold Coast cases, with which the House was extremely interested in an active way in 1947. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown at that time quoted Mr. Secretary Matthews—not an occupant of the Chair—in 1887 and 1889. He said:
Moreover, it is obvious, as was laid down by Mr. Secretary Matthews "—
I do not know what gave him the authority for laying anything down—
in 1887 and 1889, in the Lipski and Maybrick cases, and has been consistently upheld by the Chair that ' it is … injurious to the administration of justice that the circumstances of a criminal case, on which the exercise of the prerogative of mercy depends, should be made the subject of discussion or of Questions in this House.' The House would, in such case, be claiming to be a court of appeal from the sentences pronounced by the courts, if it allowed itself to discuss and decide on the circumstances of these cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 959.]
I submit that it is plain that if the quotations which I have read mean that even where the prerogative of mercy is not directly involved we cannot ask Questions about the administration of justice in particular cases, it goes altogether too far, and has never been the practice of the House. If it means that the exercise or non-exercise of the prerogative of mercy is to act in some way as a court of appeal from the sentences pronounced by the courts, it is either nonsense—because the sentences of the courts are established by the courts and the question is only whether they shall or shall not be carried out—or, if it means more than that, namely, that the question of exercising the prerogative of mercy is, in some way, an appeal, the Home Secretary would be the sole court of secret appeal, because the appeal is considered most anxiously and carefully in every case. It seems to me that those expressions of opinion by Mr. Secretary Matthews have nothing to do with the matter, and afford you no assistance in this question.
This might lead us to review the whole question whether there ought to be any limit, but at this stage I am not concerned to argue that. What I am saying is that it is a rule strictly and rigidly limited to questions directly involving circumstances in which the courts have finished and the sentences have been passed; where there is no further judicial appeal and nothing further to be done except to carry the sentence out


or not to carry it out. Only then is the House prevented from questioning or, as is now held, putting Motions on the Order Paper relating to, the exercise of the Royal prerogative.
This seems to me to be a stupid and purposeless rule. If it was accepted because there was some sort of quasi-appeal involved, I have dealt with that point. It has more usually been defended on another and much more attractive ground. It is said that the rule is a good one because this is so difficult and so embarrassing a question—involving so heavy a responsibility—that the Home Secretary ought not to be embarrassed in his exercise of it by being subject to pressure; by being harried, questioned, pursued, and appealed to by demonstrations of any sort. If that is the real reason for the rule it is ineffective. There is no freedom for the Home Secretary against such pressure in a case where sections of the public or members of the public are anxious and distressed, and convinced that a mistake is being made.
One has only to think of the Bentley case, where the Home Secretary was harried, pressurised and appealed to not only by people in this country, but by many friends of this country in other countries who were distressed and ashamed of that execution, to appreciate this. There were a number of other cases. I do not need to remind the House of them; we all know of them. We have all lived through these experiences. If it is a principle that the Home Secretary, in making up his mind, shall be protected from this pressurisation we will need something very much more extensive than the accepted practice of the House. All that does is to protect him from such pressure on the Floor of the House or on the Order Paper; it does not protect him from a wide variety of much stronger representations from all sorts of other people. It does not even protect him from pressure by hon. Members, because he is always courteous enough to see us if we want to make representations to him.
The only thing that it succeeds in doing is to prevent the House of Commons, as a House, from taking any cognisance of the matter until it is too late to have effect upon the question under discussion. Let us leave that. Accepting that the rule is there, what are

its limits? The rule seems to me to extend the matter beyond all previous limits and in an undesirable way.
It used to be said that in our Constitution freedom slowly broadened down from precedent to precedent, to which there was once a parody to the effect that our freedom swiftly tumbles down from precipice to precipice. That has been the history of the matter of the Royal prerogative and the limits of the prohibition in the past fifteen years. First, it was said, "You cannot question the Home Secretary while he is still considering what advice he will give." A further step was then taken, and it was said, "Even after he has made up his mind what advice he will give, and has publicly declared what advice he has given, although it is conceded that he remains responsible to the House he shall not be questioned about it until the capital sentence has been carried out."
It was said after that, "He is responsible to the House. You can then question him. You can then put down Motions. You can then debate it. You can then hope". But the practice of the present Home Secretary has been to introduce a further limitation upon that in practice, because he says, "You may put down a Motion questioning what I have done in any particular case, because I am responsible to the House for what I have done as Home Secretary, but as Leader of the House I will decide whether there is ever any time to discuss the Motion".
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman says, "It is very difficult. There is not any time. I do not say there never will be. Perhaps some day a year hence, five years' hence, twenty, thirty or forty years' hence, we may find some time when all the parties affected are dead and buried and nobody has any interest in the matter any more ".
While the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary, in one person, is responsible as Home Secretary, but has the right as Leader of the House to say whether there shall be time or not, even that responsibility after the event becomes purely academic and there is no effective responsibility at all. That is the situation which obviously ought not to be made worse.
The question is: is there any way of testing the question whether a Question or Motion about an inquiry is subject


to the rules which would affect a Question or Motion about the exercise of the prerogative? Have we any guide in the rest of our practice to help us to decide whether that question, which is the question which Mr. Speaker decided and which is now under challenge, was correctly decided or not? I think that, plainly, there is.
The Home Secretary has administrative powers which means, in suitable cases, administrative duties. So has, or had until recently, the Attorney-General. If it is true that a Question about an inquiry might involve the circumstances affecting the exercise of the prerogative, it is at least equally true, perhaps a fortiori true, that a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General about his grant or refusal of a fiat to take the case from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the House of Lords involves the prerogative of mercy in exactly the same way. If it is argued that an inquiry means a postponement, it equally is true that a fiat to go to the House of Lords involves a postponement.
The case of the Attorney-General is stronger than that of the Home Secretary, because his decision, although administrative, has quasi-judicial qualities. It has never been disputed that it is perfectly proper to put down Questions to the Attorney-General, in a capital case where the capital sentence is pending, about his refusal of a fiat to take that case to the House of Lords. It is equally not disputed that it is perfectly proper to debate it before the capital sentence is executed.
These are not ancient instances. I have two, one in 1957, and one in 1958. I take, first, the case of Vickers. I hope that the House will forgive me for taking so much time, but I want to put the case as clearly as I can. Vickers, it will be remembered, was the first conviction of capital murder under the Homicide Act, 1957. No one can say that it did not raise important questions of law, one of which, at any rate ultimately, went to the House of Lords in the case of Reg. v. Smith.
In that case, the present Attorney-General, who has signed the Amendment on the Order Paper today, refused a fiat to take the case to the House of Lords.

I was allowed to put down a Question to him by Private Notice. It is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1957, Vol. 573, c. 1142. I asked why he had not granted the fiat and whether he would reconsider it. He answered, and there were a whole series of supplementary questions by myself and by other hon. Members which occupied six or seven columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. At the end of it, Vickers being due to be executed the next morning, I asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. This was refused to me certainly, but not on the ground that it had nothing to do with the prerogative of mercy.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: It did not at that time, did it?

Mr. Silverman: The parallel that I am drawing is that in the case under review this afternoon a Question about an inquiry as to whether there was a miscarriage of justice was disallowed on the ground that it involved the prerogative of mercy. I am pointing out that a similar Question, admittedly not about an inquiry but about an appeal to the House of Lords, was allowed when the capital sentence was still pending, and that although the special Adjournment of the House was refused, it was not refused on that ground, but on the ground—I do not know how this was arrived at—that, somehow or other, it was not urgent because it involved only the normal administration of the law.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is referring to the exercise of the prerogative and connecting it with the grant of a fiat by the Attorney-General under the power that used to exist. I put this to the hon. Gentleman, and I ask for his observations and comments. The Attorney-General's power to grant a fiat came and arose under the statutory provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that power was an exercise of the prerogative?

Mr. Silverman: I am saying the exact opposite; I thought I was, at any rate. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I have not made myself clear. I do not want to be repetitive, but could I, in two short sentences, put the point to him again?
Whether the Home Secretary should order an inquiry is a question directed to him in his administrative or Departmental capacity. Whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman should grant a fiat to the House of Lords is a question addressed to him in his Ministerial capacity. If the inquiry were granted, or if the fiat were granted, it is common ground that a reprieve would immediately take place.
The House has repeatedly said that in the case of the fiat it is perfectly proper to put down Questions, and even to move Motions, provided that they are moved at times when the ordinary business of the House is not displaced. Under the Ruling it is said that the absolutely parallel matter of a Question addressed to the Home Secretary about an inquiry, which is equally a question about his Ministerial responsibilities, his administrative powers and rights and obligations —and which involves a reprieve as much or as little as a Question about a fiat to the Attorney-General—is disallowed, if the Ruling which is now challenged is correct.
I am saying to the House, and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that both those decisions cannot be correct. If it is not an infringement of the rule to ask him about a fiat, it cannot be an infringement of the rule to ask the Home Secretary about an inquiry.

Sir Lionel Heald: It is a non sequitur.

Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who himself has been Attorney-General, is fortunate in catching your eye. Mr. Speaker, perhaps he will explain why it is a non sequitur. At the moment, I am unable to see it.
The only reason offered for saying that a Question about an inquiry is an infringement of the rule is that it is, in practice, inseparable from the question whether there should be a reprieve. So is a Question about a fiat, and I say, therefore, that it is plainly not a non sequitur at all to say that, if it is right in the one case, it is right in the other.
This is not a chance thing because this matter was raised in the course of the discussion in 1957. My right hon.

Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said:
On a point of order. If this is a judicial function of the Attorney-General, how is the House entitled, first, to question him on it? Secondly, how can the Attorney-General be wholly judicial since he was also the prosecutor in the case? He called for a verdict, and it would seem that the court, having come to a decision, he has now vetoed the possibility of the verdict being questioned.
Then the Attorney-General intervened, quite rightly, to say that he was not the prosecutor in the case at all.
Mr. Speaker said:
With regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I myself had the same doubts as he has expressed, but I find that in 1911 the then Attorney-General, Sir Rufus Isaacs, was asked a similar question which was then allowed, and in face of that precedent I felt that I had to allow the Private Notice Question today. But I cannot allow a debate on it"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1957: Vol. 573, c. 1148.]
When he said that he could not allow a debate on it he meant a debate under Standing Order No. 9, which he had refused. This Ruling was followed only the next year in the case of Spriggs, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked a similar Question by Mr. Howell, then the Member for one of the Birmingham constituencies, and again without any objection by anybody. So it seems to me that the Ruling that one cannot ask for an inquiry while a capital sentence is pending is inconsistent with the Ruling that one can ask about the refusal of a fiat to the House of Lords.

Mr. John Hobson: Were not both these cases, and all those dealing with the fiat, cases in which the Attorney-General had not, before he exercised his discretion, had any question addressed to him? It was only when he had exercised his function that he could be questioned about a refusal. In this case, as I understand the hon. Gentleman did not intend to ask the Home Secretary about his refusal to have an inquiry, but whether he would actually exercise his discretion before he had exercised it.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. Of course, until the Attorney-General had refused the fiat no one would have dreamed of asking him why he had refused it.
I did not seek to ask the Home Secretary why he had refused an inquiry. He had not refused an inquiry. The question had never been put. He had never been asked to held an inquiry. I wanted to ask him to hold an inquiry, just as I should have wanted to ask the Attorney-General to grant a fiat. It is quite true that the procedure is different. It is quite true that the approach to the Attorney-General is normally made by the legal advisers of the man involved in the case. But it could be asked by anybody; nobody denies that. If it is in order, as it clearly is, to ask why he refused, it would equally be in order to ask why he granted it and whether he proposed to grant it at all.
I find it impossible to draw any distinction between the two cases, and since, in the case of the fiat, this is a long-established practice which no one would now question, and since, in the case of the inquiry, there is no precedent at all, it would seem to me that all canons of construction require that the principle which applies to the fiat, which is as equally involved as the inquiry, should be decided in the same sense; and if that is right, the Ruling was wrong.
I wish to say a word or two—again, apologise—about the practical aspects of this matter. Suppose that this Ruling is right. What is then the position? I want the House to listen carefully. We are all disturbed about the Evans case. We are not all so completely satisfied as others are. I think that the investigations have established what, under our law, no man is ever called on to establish—his complete innocence beyond all reasonable doubt. I quite admit that there are others looking at the same evidence with at least equal skill, and perhaps much greater skill, and I have no doubt, with an equally open mind, who are not prepared to go as far as that.
Is there anybody who is prepared to say that Evans was guilty as charged? Is there anybody who is prepared to say that if we had known then what we know now my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) would not have stopped the execution? I heard my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box in one of the Evans debates—the man who wrote on the papers, "The law must take its course"—declare to

the House of Commons—and we honour him for his courage in saying it—that Evans was not guilty as charged. Suppose that we had known it all in 1948? Some of it was known, but other parts were not. Suppose all of it had been known in 1948. If this Ruling is right no one in the House of Commons could have put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and asked him for an inquiry into it.
Is that a tolerable position? I know that some hon. Members would reply, "Well, what would that have mattered? You would have gone to the Home Secretary privately and told him it all in the privacy of his room and, of course, he would have ordered an inquiry straight away." But we cannot depend on that. He might not have seen the evidence as it ought to have been seen, or as the rest of us would have seen it. He might have refused the inquiry even then. It is conceivable and, if he had refused the inquiry, no one could have questioned him in the House of Commons until after Evans was dead. We would have to wait, as we have had to wait as it is, until ten years later, when the House of Commons, in an excess of shame, does not dare to oppose the First Reading of the Bill brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to hand over the remains of this miserable wretch to his relatives. If the Ruling was right we could not have stopped it.
That is a past case. Let me tell the House about a present case: let me tell hon. Members about George Riley. The newspapers have told something, but there are things newspapers cannot tell. That is why we have Privilege in the House of Commons. We can and we must tell. George Riley was convicted of capital crime and hanged without there being one scrap of objective evidence against him. None, no evidence at all. The evidence on which he was convicted was not evidence that he had committed the crime, but evidence that he said he did. Is that enough? Is there any lawyer in the House who thinks it is enough?
I know of no country outside the Soviet Union in the great purge trials of the 1930s which has ever claimed that a confession—made to the police while in the custody of the police, after a man has


been in the custody of the police for a long time and uncorroborated by any piece of outside evidence, retracted as soon as he got out of the hands of the police and had any advice and retracted on oath in court—was enough. Is that a safe basis on which the State can take a man's life? Even in the purge trials in the 1930s, however they brought it about, there was a public confession on which they relied. Even then, most of us would say if there is no evidence corroborating the confession, what good is the confession?

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Is it clearly a matter of evidence? Has the hon. Member read the transcript of the trial? Can he say that so that we can be sure of the facts? Can we know from where he obtained the facts, so that we can take that into account?

Mr. Silverman: What I have said appears on the transcript. There are other things that I am going to say that do not and I am not going to be afraid to say them, but so far what I have said is not in dispute. It is on the record.
I was saying that in the parallel case to which I referred—I do not know whether it was a parallel—the confessions were never recanted, but in this case it was and there was not one scrap of evidence in support of it, none. What the jury in that case had to decide was whether what the man told the police while he was in their custody, bewildered and alone, was true, or whether what he told the jury, on oath, under cross-examination, was true. I suggest it was a totally insufficient basis for a conviction, let alone for the exercise of a capital sentence.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary told me that he did not think there was a scintilla of doubt, and I am sure that he believes that. I am sure that if he thought there was he would have advised a reprieve. I am sure that he is perfectly honourable, perfectly open-minded and that he acted in the utmost good faith, but is there anybody else who, on these facts alone, would say there is no doubt?

Mr. Hobson: There were twelve jurymen on whom the defendant had placed himself as representing his country.

Mr. Silverman: Now I am going to tell the House what the jury did not

know, but the police knew and did not tell the jury. He said in his own account, when he was explaining how he came to write out in his own hand this confession, that the police came running to him saying, "Look, George, your footprints, your fingerprints, blood in the same group". Not a word of truth in it. There were no footprints, no fingerprints, there was no blood of the same group.
There was blood, the photographs and the medical evidence showed that the assailant must in all probability have used a weapon—Riley had no weapon—and that the whole place was bespattered with blood. The photographs are horrible. The assailant must have been covered with blood. There was no blood on Riley, except a couple of spots at the bottom of his trousers arising out of a dance hall brawl, nothing whatever comparable to what the medical evidence agreed must have been on the clothing of the assailant.

The Attorney-General: May I ask the hon. Member again—because it is important that we should know this are these statements based on what he has read himself, or as evidence based on a transcript of the shorthand note taken at the trial, or are they from a newspaper report?

Mr. Silverman: They are not taken from a newspaper. They are not taken from a transcript. I take the responsibility of saying that they are true. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to know the source of my information, I will give it to him privately, but not here.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member has said that the photographs and evidence showed that the assailant must have used a weapon and must have been covered with blood. The hon. Member said "evidence". Has he read the transcript?

Mr. Silverman: I have not read the transcript. The evidence I am referring to is that of Professor Webster, of the Forsenic Laboratory at Birmingham, a man whose authority the Attorney-General, I am sure, will not question.
I am coming to the point that I most wanted to make. When the solicitor defending the man went to have a look at the house, he found missing from the


wall alongside the staircase two large pieces of wallpaper. He was curious enough to ask what had happened to them. The police told him, "These pieces of wallpaper were covered with blood, so we tore them off and sent them for examination to see what kind of blood, whose blood".
Nobody has ever seen those pieces of wallpaper since. The police say that they have somehow got lost. Where are they? Why did they get lost? They were of such a height as to be consistent, most probably with the assailant himself being covered with blood, going down the staircase and brushing against the wallpaper. Therefore, he must have had blood on his shoulder. Riley had none on him. Please do not ask me for my authority. Take it that I have checked it to the best of my ability and will, if he wants it, give the right hon. and learned Gentleman my authority another time.
After the confession the police officer in charge of the case rides with Riley in a police car to the committal room, and on the way he says, "What did you do with the handbag, George?" Riley says, "What handbag?" That is the last reference to a handbag. Nobody ever heard of the handbag again, and there is no evidence that a handbag was ever missing. Curious, is it not?
Now something about the policeman himself, because who was telling the truth about the circumstances of that confession in the police station depends to some extent on the credibility of the principal police officer. That principal police officer has within the past twelve months been suspended from duty on an accusation of which he was cleared—I will give the circumstances of how he was cleared in a moment—that he had tampered with witnesses and sought to induce them to alter their evidence in an inquiry by the Ministry of Health into an allegation by three women that they had been charged, or someone had been charged, fees by a doctor who had treated them under the National Health Service.
This officer took the statements, and then there were complaints that after he was finished with them he went back to the women and sought to get them to alter their statements in favour of the doctor against whom the complaint had

been made. Another officer investigated the matter. The papers were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, in turn, sent them back to the Chief Constable and said, "There is something to inquire into here, certainly, but perhaps not sufficient to involve a criminal prosecution. Hold a disciplinary inquiry yourself."
The Chief Constable held his disciplinary inquiry. He had in front of him the evidence of the three women who had made the complaint, and they made it again for him. No doubt the money had passed by cheque—no question about it. They said that the police officer had been to them and sought to get them to change their evidence. The police officer said that it was not true, and the Chief Constable preferred the evidence of his police officer to the evidence of the complainants. That is all. In this way he was exonerated, though if the jury had known that they might perhaps have added it to the other factors. They were out for two hours.
Is there anyone in the House who does not think that there is sufficient there to inquire into? Maybe the Home Secretary will inquire into it, but Riley is not interested any more. The point I am making is that, if this Ruling is correct, Evans may not be the only case in which a man is hanged, where there ought to be an inquiry and where no inquiry takes place at any effective hour. That is all. We have to consider our position very carefully.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether this information about the police officer was known by the representatives of the accused at the trial?

Mr. Silverman: This is a difficult one, but I will answer it. It was known by the solicitor defending Riley, but whether that solicitor passed on the information to learned counsel defending Riley I do not know. The solicitor defending Riley was in a difficulty, because he knew these facts only because he had acted for the police inspector in the disciplinary inquiry to which I have referred and, no doubt, felt a professional difficulty about using in one case information which came to him only in the course of his professional relationship with another trial. There is another reason, too.

Mr. Rawlinson: Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that the solicitor acting for Riley was in difficulty in knowing, as he did, that, if there was a complaint of credibility, Riley's own character was such as could be put in evidence if he were to challenge the credibility of the police inspector?

Mr. Silverman: That is the other difficulty to which I refer, but since something has been said about Riley's character, let it be said that there is nothing in his record involving dishonesty. One of the worst features of this confession in the police cell are the innocent words which, in the end, killed him. The confession of a murderer does not make it a capital offence except the offence be committed in the course of theft. But, somehow or other, there came into the statement just sufficient words to convert a non-capital crime into a capital crime—the words, "I only wanted some money."
We have to be careful how we worry the Home Secretary in capital cases. It is quite wrong to harry him in every case. I am asking the House to believe that when I asked for an inquiry I thought, as I still think, that in the Riley case there was plenty to inquire into. There may be other cases. If this Ruling is correct, we shall never be able on the Floor of the House, until after the event and when it is too late to do any good, to ask for any investigation of them at all.
I submit to the House, to those who are with me in not liking capital punishment, to those who reluctantly think it necessary to retain it—no one on either side of this great argument has any interest in perverting the course of justice in order to produce an acquittal or a conviction; even those who are most passionately convinced that we must sometimes exercise the death penalty are not in favour of hanging the wrong man—that, if this Ruling is correct, we are preventing ourselves from doing our duty in cases of this kind. That is the point. True, there would be no such difficulty if we could get rid of the death penalty altogether. I should not be in order if I argued about that. and I will not do so.
Before 1957, we hanged, on an average, a dozen people a year. Since 1957,

we have hanged, on an average, two or three people a year. Is there anybody so addicted to the gallows and the hangman that he thinks that the damage to society which might result from no longer hanging a couple of wretches a year is in any way compensated for by the risks we run in doing it?

5.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
upholds the well-established rule under which in any case involving a capital sentence the circumstances on which the exercise of the prerogative of mercy depends should not be made the subject of question or discussion in this House while the sentence is pending ".
I should like to say without disrespect to the bon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that I shall not speak for so long as he did. That is not because I do not attach importance to the issue. It is because I want other hon. Members to take part in the debate. I hope that I can summarise what I want to say at not too great length. This arises from no disrespect to the hon. Member because, although I do not agree with much of what he said, no one can doubt his sincerity or fail to mark his manner of presentation.
The Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and other hon. Members asks the House to express the view that the Ruling recently given by Mr. Speaker was
not in accordance with the precedents and practice of this House and imposes new. unnecessary and undesirable limitations on the ability of hon. Members to discharge their public duties.
For the opening part of his speech the hon. Member said that he did not question the main issue to too great an extent, namely, that before a capital case is ruled upon by the Home Secretary, advising in one way or another on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, there should not be Questions in the House. He went on to question whether the fact that his own Question about an inquiry was ruled out of order was not an undesirable extension of a principle which has been established. I apprehended that quite clearly from his speech.
On the other hand, in the course of his long speech there is no doubt that the


hon. Member referred from time to time to the original issue and questioned it. We all know each other in the House and we know each other's oratory. The hon. Member is nothing if not thorough in his oratory and he examines searchingly the very issues which he proposes as being acceptable.
On the strength of that, while I do not propose to burke or avoid the issue which he had in his mind, namely, whether Mr. Speaker's Ruling was an undue extension of the past practice, it is essential for me as the Home Secretary of the day to rehearse very shortly, in view of the hon. Gentleman's speech, the Rulings which have been hitherto made and the principles upon which we work.
Mr. Speaker declined to allow the non. Member to put down a Question to me asking whether I would order an inquiry into whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in the case of George Riley.
The Government take the view that it is a long-established practice of the House, as I shall now show, not to discuss the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in a capital case while the capital case is pending. In this connection there is a distinct difference between the statutory powers in relation to his fiat which are vested in the Attorney-General, which he will deal with shortly at the end of the debate, and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Speaker referred on 7th February, as his predecessors have done, to the statement made by Mr. Matthews on 12th August, 1887. I need not read this again because it was read by the hon. Gentleman. It was in regard to the case of Lipski. This is the first case which I have been able to trace in which a Home Secretary was asked in a case involving the death penalty to give information before he had given his advice to the Crown or, where he decided to tender no advice for a reprieve, before the sentence had been carried out. Mr. Matthews said:
I think it highly inexpedient and injurious to the administration of justice that the circumstances of a criminal case, on which the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy depends, should be made the subject of discussion in this House.
That is of some importance as a basis, but it might be less important if it had not been so frequently followed up.
Mr. Matthews maintained this view in further statements on 22nd August, 1889, and on 14th March, 1892. This was followed up by his successor and one of my predecessors as Home Secretary, Sir Matthew White Ridley on 13th July, 1899, Mr. Ritchie on 22nd February, 1901, and Mr. Akers-Douglas on 18th December, 1902. They all followed up this practice and it was accepted by the House for many years. It was not until 1920 that Mr. Speaker was called on to give a ruling on the subject.
On 29th November, 1920, Mr. Speaker Lowther refused to accept a Motion for the Adjournment in the case of Cyril Saunders. He said this:
… I could not accept such a Motion. It would be an interference with the ordinary administration of the course of justice. It has been laid down on previous occasions in this House that no Motion for the Adjournment could be accepted in such a case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1920; Vol. 135, c. 931.]
Mr. Speaker Lowther gave a similar ruling in another case on 1 I th March, 1921.
On 13th June, 1922, Mr. Speaker Whitley gave a similar ruling on a similar Motion in relation to the case of Ronald True. In 1934 Mr. Speaker Fitzroy declined to allow a Question asking the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision in the case of Ernest Brown.
We now arrive, after that gradual accretion of statements by Home Secretaries followed by rulings from the Chair, at cases which will be within the recollection of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I refer especially to the Rulings given by the predecessors of Mr. Speaker in 1947 in relation to the Gold Coast murders and in 1953 in the case of Bentley. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown in the former case stated the position with admirable clarity. I beg to be excused for reading this short passage:
The practice of the House makes a complete distinction between capital sentences and other forms of punishment, so far as the Prerogative of Mercy is concerned. Whereas the remission of a sentence of imprisonment, for example, can be urged upon a Minister at any time after its imposition, a capital sentence cannot be raised in Question or Debate while the sentence is pending. After it has been executed, the Minister responsible may be critcised on the relevant Vote in Supply, or on the Adjournment. I have stated that that is the practice of the House, and I cannot alter the practice of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 2180–1.]


This Ruling, which follows on all the others I have quoted, was maintained by Mr. Speaker Morrison on 27th January, 1953, when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne himself sought to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 in the case of Bentley and in July of the same year when several hon. Members wished to move the Adjournment on the ground that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the report of the inquiry in the case of Evans before the execution of Christie.

Mr, S. Silverman: Was that a slip of the tongue'? I do not think that I ever sought to move the Adjournment of the House in the case of Bentley.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman raised it, and I would certainly accept his recollection if it proves that I have made a mistake, because he must recollect what he did himself.

Mr. Silverman: What I was seeking to do was to put on the Order Paper a Motion which was ultimately disallowed, and I raised with Mr. Speaker the question of whether the Motion ought not to have appeared. That is all.

Mr. Butler: On 9th May, 1956, the same Speaker gave a similar ruling in another case, in which the Minister concerned was the Colonial Secretary.
I hope that I have demonstrated, therefore, to the satisfaction of hon. Members that this practice has long been accepted by the House, and that when it has been called into question it has been consistently upheld by the Rulings of successive Speakers—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Perhaps the Home Secretary will allow me to intervene, as he now appears to be moving to another point. He is giving us authority for the proposition that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy cannot be called into question. As I apprehend it, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) accepts that. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us authority for the proposition that the exercise of the executive power of the Home Secretary in a capital case is not open to challenge if that executive power coincidentally might impinge on the exercise of the prerogative? For that proposition, can he give authority?

Mr. Butler: Everything derives from the exercise of the prerogative, and that exercise of the prerogative, as I have said, has been ruled upon in matters directed to the execution of capital cases by the Chair consistently up to this date. I cannot go further in answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Before I come to discuss the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the subject of his proposed Question was quite a different matter and
… had nothing to do with the prerogative of mercy 
I should like briefly to say something of the reasons for this practice which will, I hope, commend themselves to the House.
First, there is the constitutional position of the Home Secretary in regard to the exercise of the Royal prerogative. The duty laid upon him is to tender such advice as he thinks right. It is only when his advice has been given and has taken effect that this House can properly challenge the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities, and seek to bring him to account. That, I think, is the constitutional position that all my predecessors have accepted, and under which they have worked.
The second reason arises from the nature of the duty imposed on the Home Secretary. Once a case has been decided by the courts, the duty of the Home Secretary is to consider whether there are any extenuating circumstances or whether there may be any doubt as to the prisoner's guilt that would justify him in recommending the commutation of the capital sentence. Sir, one at least of my predecessors is in this Chamber, and I think that he will agree that in the discharge of that duty—which is certainly the most onerous and painful of the duties of his office—the Home Secretary takes into account all available information, including information that cannot be made public, and has regard to all relevant considerations and circumstances.
He has before him the transcripts of the proceedings at the trial and in any appeal. He has before him all the representations that are made to him from any quarter, including those made by Members of this House—and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman, in his passionate sincerity in speaking on this matter, did, at least, do me the credit


of saying that I have tried to decide these matters honestly and sincerely, and to listen to the representations made to me, which I will always undertake to do. The Home Secretary also frequently has before him a good deal of information coming from a variety of sources which, for one reason or another, could not be or perhaps, was not before the court.
He has full reports on the prisoner's history and background. If there has been a medical inquiry into the prisoner's mental condition—and one is held whenever there is the slightest ground for thinking it necessary—he has a report of that. The Home Secretary undertakes, opersonally or through his advisers, such consultations with those who have knowledge of the case as are likely to be helpful. But, when all the consultations are over, and when all the available material has been studied, the final decision whether to advise the exercise of the prerogative is one that the Home Secretary must take alone.
It is rarely an easy task. It is usually one of the utmost difficulty, involving great anxiety. It must be taken by the Home Secretary personally, to the best of his ability, using all the information and advice available to him, and acting according to his conscience. It has long been accepted that in taking his decision he should not be subject to the pressure of Parliamentary discussion.
Neither I as Home Secretary nor Parliament can re-try the case, a point that anybody assuming the office of Home Secretary has borne in most clearly on his mind after his first few cases. Parliamentary discussion, in which it would very often be impossible for the Home Secretary—as the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment accepted—to disclose the facts and considerations that are before him, and to which he must give weight, is not likely to assist in such a vital decision.
If this is all agreed, and if the longstanding practice used in relation to the prerogative is to be maintained, I suggest, as Mr. Speaker did last week, that the same consideration should preclude a discussion of any suggestion of an inquiry.
This is where I come to the hon. Member's second point. The only purpose for

which the Home Secretary could direct the holding of an inquiry would be to assist him in deciding whether or not to recommend the exercise of the prerogative. It would be a very strange situation if the House, holding as it has done that the exercise of the prerogative should not be the subject of debate while a capital sentence is pending, should regard as proper to discuss, in that situation, whether the Home Secretary ought to hold an inquiry with a view to assisting him in his decision on the question of recommending the exercise of the prerogative—

Mr. Clement Davies: The Home Secretary is saying that there should not be any inquiry, but surely it was an inquiry that was held into the conviction of Adolf Beck that led to the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal?

Mr. Butler: I am glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman has intervened. I was not saying there could not have been an inquiry: I was upholding the Ruling of the Speaker in relation to a question about an inquiry which I maintain trenches on the previous Ruling—which, I submit, was the correct Ruling—by the Speaker, because a debate on the matter would inevitably traverse the same ground as a debate for the exercise of the prerogative—

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the only purpose of such an inquiry was to assist the Home Secretary in deciding whether to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Does he really mean that? In the Rowland case, the Court of Criminal Appeal directed the Home Secretary, as far as it could, to hold an inquiry to see whether there had been a miscarriage of justice before the execution, not for the purpose of seeing whether there should be a reprieve but to see whether Rowland had been rightly convicted. So with Evans and Christie —an inquiry was ordered, but it was not to see whether there should be a reprieve but whether or not they had been rightly convicted.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than an hour and twenty minutes and I am speaking for a very short time. My claim is, first of all, that the case is absolutely made out of non-questioning of the Home Secretary


in the period while he is deciding on the exercise of the prerogative.
My second point is that if the Speaker allowed a Question upon an inquiry—and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for making clear what I have in mind—a debate on that matter would inevitably traverse the same ground as a debate for the exercise of the prerogative. That is my claim. I put it quite simply and shortly, and I think that I am correct. The Home Secretary would, in my view, be subject to the same pressures and would be under the same handicap in taking what in this case also, can only be his personal decision. I do not think that this could be assisted by Parliamentary debate, or that it is proper for it to be taken in the atmosphere of Parliamentary debate.
That is my view, and that is why we on this side are moving this Amendment to the hon. Gentleman's Motion. We are not moving it in any spirit that need cause him any offence but are doing so merely because we regard it as a fair and decent exposition of the practice of the House which we have known to date.
Before I sit down, I must refer briefly to the case of George Riley which has given rise to the debate. I say "briefly" for this reason. I have with me all the precedents of my predecessors right through the last century, long before Mr. Asquith. On a similar occasion nearly seventy years ago, Mr. Asquith said that he did not
for one moment dispute the constitutional right of the House to question, to criticise, and, if necessary, to censure the action of a Minister in the performance of his duty",
but it is clear that it has not been the practice for the Home Secretary to state in detail the reasons on which his decision on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was based.
I have examined what my predecessors have said in this matter. I have what was said by Sir Matthew White Ridley. I have another precedent by Mr. Akers-Douglas in 1904, and one on 18th April, 1911, by Mr. Churchill who, when asked to state the considerations which influenced him in refusing a reprieve for Stinie Morrison said:
It would not be in accordance with the usual practice which has long received the approval of this House to enter upon a dis-

cussion of reasons for the exercise or refusal of the prerogative of mercy in capital cases." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1911; Vol. xxiv, 621–2.]
That is the doctrine which has been handed down to me and for which I have quoted the most respectable statements that I can find. I wish to maintain that rule which, I think, is sound and necessary. It is of the utmost importance that the House should not seek to constitute itself as an additional court of appeal a function which, as Mr. Asquith said on the occasion which I have just mentioned,
 with the best will in the world it could only discharge incompletely and imperfectly.
Although the hon. Member has brought forward points in regard to the case, I cannot find a better description to apply to them than to say that, in the words of Mr. Asquith, the House in considering them could discharge its duty
with the best will in the world … only incompletely and imperfectly.
He has brought forward points which, I think, could all be answered, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has something to say about the case itself.
I want to say this as Home Secretary. In Riley's case, I gave the closest consideration to all the facts and information which had been put before me, including information which was not, and some of which could not have been, before the court. I took into account also the representations which were made to me on Riley's behalf by hon. Members and by persons outside, and I took the special course of seeing personally some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. A very painful and arduous duty it was, although conducted in the right spirit by those who saw me, for which I thank them. After the fullest consideration, I was satisfied that Riley had been rightly found guilty of murder committed in the course of the furtherance of theft, and I therefore regret that I had no other possibility than to take the course I did. I say "regret" because of the very heavy burden lying upon me in any such decision.
The hon. Member referred to various points. There is only one in relation to the police which I want to mention. The allegations against the inspector on the earlier occasion to which he referred


were considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time, and he found in them no ground for action. A formal disciplinary inquiry was held. The inspector was found not guilty of the conduct charged against him. It is surely repugnant to our normal concepts of fair play and justice to accuse a man a second time of an offence of which he has once been cleared. I do not myself accept that the inspector was not properly cleared of these charges.
For the rest, I have satisfied myself of the prisoner's guilt, and I can assure the House that, after close and prolonged scrutiny of the evidence before the court as well as other evidence available to me, I could find no ground for recommending a reprieve. It was indeed a heavy decision, and my main task today, leaving aside this particular and tragic case, is to show, on the basis of precedent, on the basis of the statements of my predecessors and of the predecessors of Mr. Speaker that on the question of whether an investigation into the possibility of an inquiry would be a proper subject for Questions to be put on the Paper, I have no hesitation in saying that our Amendment should be accepted. I am most strongly of opinion that the long standing practice of the House should be maintained, and I therefore commend the Amendment to hon. and right hon. Members.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the Home Secretary deal with the important constitutional question raised by my hon. Friend, namely, the situation which can arise where there is a coincidence in the office of Home Secretary and Leader of the House which, with the Home Secretary in his capacity as Leader of the House, could result in blocking, even after the carrying out of the death sentence, discussion of the matter on the Floor of the House? It seems to be a matter of great importance, in the light of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Butler: That is a perfectly legitimate point. It so happens that several of my predecessors have been Home Secretaries as well as Leaders of the House. It is not an uncommon combination, as the right hon. Member for South Shields knows. I agree that there are occasions where there might be conflict of opinion.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has been very patient with his Motion. I have not been trying to avoid it simply because I do not want to meet it, although I should be governed by what I have said today about my difficulties in giving reasons, which are respectable and have precedent for them. At the same time, I am convinced that the Leader of the House on this occasion is behaving with just as much tenderness and reason towards the Home Secretary as any Leader of the House would. One of the sincere difficulties has been to find time. We have deliberately found time for this Motion in relation to Mr. Speaker, but, of course, I do not preclude the possibility of further time being found, although we are at an extremely busy time of year.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Am I right on the following point of practice, that the prerogative of mercy is exercised in cases other than those involving capital punishment, the difference between its exercise in cases of capital punishment and in the others being that all cases of capital punishment are automatically reviewed by the Home Secretary of the day, and other cases are reviewed only on their being brought to his attention and considered by him to be suitable for review?

Mr. Butler: We deliberately put in our Amendment the words "involving the capital sentence" in order that the other question should not be brought into the debate or should not be governed by all the considerations which I have put. As regards the physical point about whether all the other cases come to me, the answer is that they could not, of course, because there are so many of them. They are governed by a rather different procedure.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I listened in amazement to the Home Secretary, and feel extremely sad to think that the right hon. Gentleman should have put forward a case resting solely on all the past precedents of history and not attempted to look at the urgent questions which we have put to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not discuss this matter with me. When I came to the House on Monday,


6th February, I had read an article in the Observer about the Riley case and I had had information presented to me, some of which my hon. Friend has submitted to the House. As I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, it is my usual custom to ask the Minister to inquire into a matter and, if it be not undertaken, I exercise my right to ask about it in the House. I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary on 6th February saying that I had received information concerning this case. I asked him to study it because, I said, it created the gravest doubt in a case which rested entirely on the validity of the prisoner's confession. That information was conveyed to me on the Monday.
I was very troubled about this matter. I wrote to the Home Secretary and gave him specific information about certain allegations connected with this case. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to see me, but I am bound to say that I shall regard that Monday evening, when he sent for me and when I saw him in his office, as a black Monday evening, for I had the feeling that, even though he told me that the information which I had given him was in his briefcase, and that he was taking it home to study with all the other relevant information, the right hon. Gentleman had then made up his mind in the matter. When I learned the following morning that two people had received a letter by the first post in which it was stated that the right hon. Gentleman had declined to consider a reprieve, I felt even more strongly about the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has referred to the setting up of an inquiry. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to decide the matter on legal grounds. After all, this concerned three persons who had made written statements, copies of which I have, in which they alleged that the police inspector involved in the case had attempted to persuade them to alter their evidence. I agree that the officer was exonerated, but I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the legal opinion of a person who was present at the investigation, and who was representing the person concerned, is clearly stated in the letter which I submitted to him. He said:

I considered the proceedings, and particularly those in the afternoon, to be a denial of elementary principles of justice and fair play.
Consequently, the papers were sent to the Law Society.
Why did not the Home Secretary consider that it would have been wise—I realise that the Home Secretary is not listening to me—

Mr. Butler: Yes, I am.

Mr. Yates: This was a matter in which the life of a man was at stake. I should have thought that he would have been willing to have inquiries instituted about the allegations which were made. The Home Secretary has told us that at no time, whatever information we may be able to bring forward, may we table a Question in the House on the matter and that it cannot be raised because of past precedents. He has quoted words which explain the past practice of the House, but I think that changed circumstances demand that the House should look at this matter again.
I am pleased that the Home Secretary said that this may not be the end of the discussion. I remember Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown using the words on 1st May, 1947, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He said:
The practice of the House makes a complete distinction between capital sentences and other forms of punishment, so far as the Prerogative of mercy is concerned. Whereas the remission of a sentence of imprisonment, for example, can be urged upon a Minister at any time after its imposition, a capital sentence cannot be raised in Question or debate while the sentence is pending. After it has been executed, the Minister responsible may be criticised on the relevant Vote in Supply, or on the Adjournment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May. 1947; Vol. 436, c. 2180–1.]
I appreciated that there was some force in the argument. But we had not had the case of Timothy Evans then. That had not arisen.
We are now in this position. In the case of a sentence passed by a court of law which is not as serious as a capital sentence, we may always ask the Minister a Question and we can always take action which may eventually lead to a change in that sentence. We may appeal to the Home Secretary to use his influence. But in the most serious case of all, where a life is at stake, then, whatever information we can bring forward, it can never be considered. In view of the facts that we now have about the Timothy Evans


case, surely it is time that the House reconsidered its past practice.
I referred last week to the fact that I did not believe that the time at our disposal was sufficient to discuss the whole principle of this matter. Suppose that it had been known at the time of the Evans case that there were buried in his garden the remains of two women who had been murdered. If it could have been proved that the principal witness for the prosecution had committed those murders, what effect would that have had on the jury? Surely the jury would have had some doubt in the case. But even if that evidence could have been put forward, under the constitutional practice and theory, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was then Home Secretary, could not have changed his decision.

Mr. Frank Bowles: He could have.

Mr. Yates: Later, yes, but if the constitutional position had been that we could not raise the matter, then either he would have had to call for an inquiry, which, no doubt, he would have done, or said that the sentence should not be carried out pending a further discussion of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) raised the matter while Christie was under sentence of death.
The Home Secretary has put the House in a straitjacket. It is a complete travesty of the principles of democracy if we know that evidence that should be examined is not examined.
We have put before the Home Secretary evidence concerning the principal witness for the prosecution—the police inspector—in the Riley case. We put information to the right hon. Gentleman concerning the doubt that existed and the fact that on the method by which evidence was obtained, there was a suspicion, and that even though the officer was exonerated, it was by a police inquiry and not an independent inquiry. From my information and knowledge about what happened, I have not the slightest doubt that an independent inquiry would have produced an entirely different view. For that reason, I feel very disturbed that we are powerless to raise a question concerning this matter.
I should like to quote from last Sunday's Observer, which quoted the book Battle for the Mind, by Dr. William Sargant, who, according to the newspaper,
claims that while an entirely false confession is not likely to be extracted in under twenty-four hours of interrogation, a much shorter time is sufficient to produce serious factual distortions in cases where the suspect is suffering from emotional stress.
The article goes on to say, and I entirely agree:
But in those cases (not very numerous) where an uncorroborated confession of the ' I did it' variety "—
undoubtedly, this is one of them—
is made by an accused while he is alone with the police in a police-station, his statement should be excluded entirely at the trial, unless he himself repeats it before the court.
So long as the suspect makes the statement at the scene of the crime or in his own home, there is no objection to the statement being admitted. But the exclusion of confessions by those taken to a police station for questioning would ensure more thorough investigations of crime and would put an end to the nagging suspicion that some men are convicted on statements extorted by the police.
Knowing what I have studied about psychiatry and about suggestions that can be made to persons who are under emotional stress, I feel very disturbed. A book has just been written about Timothy Evans which gives evidence of this beyond any shadow of doubt. This man had been in a police station for seven hours. Heaven knows what happened. If the jury had known the facts which I have submitted in a letter to the Home Secretary, and had the jury known the additional facts which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has brought forward, I think that there would have been an element of doubt.
The Home Secretary may think that there is no doubt. It is not a matter of what the Home Secretary thinks. Rather is it what the court and the jury would have thought in those circumstances. I am shocked to think that we must go on knowing that a miscarriage of justice occurred in the case of Timothy Evans. I shall never forget the statement in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who was then Home Secretary. In a tense moment, he told hon. Members that when the Criminal Justice Bill was before the House, he had never said that a mistake could not be made. He realised, however, that


a mistake in some form had been made. That was an admission which everybody in the House regarded as a courageous thing for a former Home Secretary to say. There are many of us in this House who never want a situation of that kind to develop again.
I am sorry to think that the Home Secretary did not consider that in the present case there was even a minute doubt which could have led to an investigation. I certainly believe that this matter will not end here. The House must consider and probe it further. We must ensure that a fairer method is adopted if we are to have real justice in these cases. It is not sufficient for the Home Secretary, in his own office, to have information that we do not have, or for him to feel that justice has been done. People outside must see that justice is done. I do not believe that in all the circumstances, people will feel that justice has been done until investigation is made into a case of this kind.
I therefore object to the Government's Amendment to the Motion, though not because I think that Mr. Speaker was altogether wrong. I realise that Mr. Speaker himself said, in effect, "If you care to change this practice, it will be satisfactory to me." At the same time, the Home Secretary and the Government are proposing an Amendment which asks us now to go forward supporting this principle when new facts have come into our possession. In two cases, there has been an intolerable result and I hope that the House will never rest until we have a change in our method.

5.58 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I do not wish to detain the House at any length, but I should like to say a few words arising from what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has been saying. It is most important that it should be appreciated why this principle should be maintained, where it arises and what it leads to. It has been acted on for many years and I suggest that it is not only justified, but required, first, on principle having regard to the constitutional background; secondly, as a matter of practical expediency; and, thirdly, on precedent. It is with regard to the first of these matters that I want briefly to detain the House.
It has been suggested—indeed, there is a learned article on the subject in The Times this morning—that there is doubt with regard to the question of whether the Home Secretary's consideration of his action in relation to the possible exercise of the prerogative of mercy is, indeed, a matter of prerogative at all. It is right that it should be made clear that, at least as I see it, that is an entirely unfounded view.
It may be helpful to the House to state briefly exactly what is the basis of the Home Secretary's action. It has been pointed out that we are dealing here particularly with the procedure which arises in connection with the execution of the death sentence. We must understand how that arises. When a man is condemned to death the sheriff is ordered by one of Her Majesty's judges to carry out the sentence and he is bound to do so by law. The document which requires him to perform his function is a prerogative document. That can only be stayed, in cases where there is no appeal, by the issue of another prerogative document which is issued in appropriate cases by the Home Secretary, called the "respite" or "reprieve". The Home Secretary has no right to issue such a document in any other character than as the direct representative of the Sovereign who, of course, is equally represented by the judge who made the order condemning the individual to death.
Therefore, the first act which has to be performed by the Home Secretary is to decide, not as an administrative officer, but as the direct representative of the Crown—in his original capacity as the Secretary of State, the Secretary to the King or Queen—whether he should issue that document. If he does so, it has the effect of staying the order of execution. It is well to remember that such a respite may also be issued, according to constitutional law, by the judge himself or by other judges. In the first case it is issued ex-mandato regis —that is to say, directly in the name of the King—and in the second case it is issued ex-arbitris judicis—that is to say. arising in the ordinary course of justice.
That leads to the course that if the Home Secretary performs the prerogative on behalf of the Crown the execution is stayed and thereupon, in the case of commutation of sentence, a conditional pardon is prepared which is


signed by the Sovereign. That substitutes imprisonment for the sentence of death.
One therefore sees that the act which results in a reprieve is twofold and both parts of it are direct exercises of the prerogative. It should, therefore, be appreciated that in this matter we are dealing with a prerogative subject and that it is not a matter of judicial action, except in the sense that the Sovereign is the fountain of justice. Just as the judge can act in the Sovereign's name to apply a respite, so the Home Secretary acts directly in his name in doing the same thing from a different point of view. We must, therefore, realise that we are in a very special field and would be doing something about which we must be very careful, if we tamper with it or alter it.
Let us also remember that it is the duty of the Home Secretary, in every case where a man has been condemned to death, whether there is a petition or not, to make a full and careful inquiry. That inquiry is described in The Home Office, a book originally the work of Sir Edward Troup, which has recently been brought up to date by Sir Frank Newman, both well-known members of the Home Office. In that book it mentions that in the Home Secretary's room there is a card, of which many of us have heard, which says, "You can never hesitate too long before deciding that a man must die".
This solemn reminder serves to emphasise the gravity of the most exacting of the Home Secretary's duties, that of considering whether there are grounds for the exercise by the Crown of the Royal prerogative of mercy. In every case where a man stands under sentence of death it is the solemn duty of the Home Secretary to carry out a full inquiry.
If we consider the present case, it appears from what the hon. Member for Ladywood told us that the facts which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised—and no one doubts their sincerity and anxiety in the matter—were brought to the notice of the Home Secretary. I hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will listen, because I want to make it perfectly clear that what I am going to say is no possible reflection on him. Is he

not saying that in the circumstances of this case, his view of the facts that he has investigated should take the place of the Home Secretary's review of the facts?

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not quite clear whether I have got the right hon. and learned Member's point but, if I have, may I say that I do not believe any of the facts set out in my speech are contested by anyone?

Sir L. Heald: The hon. Member agrees that they were brought to the notice of the Home Secretary. If we accept, as I would suggest in this very serious matter we must accept, the basic principle that the Home Secretary should carry out, and must carry out, this inquiry in every case, it is essential that we should apply it seriously and strictly and not allow any substitution to be made in the exercise of the Home Secretary's duty.
I spoke of expediency and I would put it in this way: how can it be right that an inquiry of this kind, a solemn consideration involving facts and evidence which could not possibly be brought forward in court, should be considered by 630 people? That is what is being suggested. If we allow that to be done, we are, as was said by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, substituting another court of appeal in this House and one that will take account of the different views of 630 different individuals.

Mr. Silverman: On this point, I am 100 per cent. in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member. I could imagine no more stupid form of criminal investigation, or one more evocative of error after error, than to be subject to appeal in the Division Lobbies of the House of Commons with the Whips on. That is not what I am asking. I am asking for an inquiry.

Sir L. Heald: I am obliged to the hon. Member. As I have already said, I do not wish to detain the House. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with the other question I should have liked to discuss with the hon. Member and perhaps we shall have an opportunity to discuss it in some other place.
I wish particularly to deal with what might be called the second leg of the Motion and to try to point out to the


hon. Member for Ladywood that there is concerned in this matter a very deep constitutional question, and that if we differ from him, as we do, it is on very sincere grounds. We are here dealing with a fundamental constitutional matter and unless we can find a most deeply convincing reason for interfering with it we must refuse to do so.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I desire to detain the House only for a few minutes, but I wish to do so because I was one of the hon. Members whom the Home Secretary was kind enough to see last week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) has already mentioned, I had a Question down on this subject which was considered by Mr. Speaker very largely because of my hon. Friend's Question. I do not think that I dissent from a great many of the things which the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has said, but the debate, which has been most useful, has, of course, covered much wider fields than the topic on which he chose to concentrate.
It seems to me that there are a large number of issues involved here which it is important to keep distinct. If one studies the terms of the Motion and the Amendment one finds two different issues, the first being whether Mr. Speaker's Ruling was correct according to the precedents, and, the second whether, if it was correct, it is a Ruling which should be confirmed or should be changed.
I will not elaborate on that question except to express my opinion. I should have thought, after looking at the precedents and hearing them quoted today, that Mr. Speaker's Ruling was in accordance with precedents. That, as is recognised, does not conclude the matter because Mr. Speaker gave the Ruling with great reluctance and expressed the view that the matter was one which should be reviewed by the House.
The important question therefore is not whether the Ruling was in accordance with precedents but whether it should be renewed or revised, and for that reason I am a little sorry that the Government have put their Amendment on the Order Paper.
There is another point on which I think it is important to maintain a distinction. We have heard a great deal about the prerogative of mercy, and we have heard something about the due administration of justice. These two things are quite distinct. 1 agree with what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey and others that the Home Secretary in advising the Sovereign on the prerogative of mercy is exercising a very special function for which he, and he alone, must be responsible.
I agree also that it would be quite ridiculous to substitute either this House or any other body for the Home Secretary as the person on whom that very onerous duty must devolve. That being so, I am fully in accordance with the doctrine which has been propounded that until a decision has been reached on whether the prerogative of mercy should be exercised or not, it would be wrong for the House, by Question or Motion to seek to affect that decision. After it has been given, there may be criticism of it.
But what concerns me in this whole matter is not so much the exercise of the prerogative of mercy as the administration of justice. It will be appreciated that there may well be a number of cases in which the prerogative of mercy is exercised for reasons which have nothing to do with the trial. It may be exercised because of the age of the culprit, because of the sex of the culprit, because of his previous record, his sanity or lack of sanity and because of a whole variety of circumstances which have nothing whatever to do with the trial. But having said that the House is not directly concerned with the prerogative of mercy before it is exercised, we are surely agreed that the House is vitally concerned with the due administration of justice.
We would all recognise that the Home Secretary, in a most difficult and embarrassing task, reached, as he always does, an honest and sincere decision and that in doing so he takes into account not only the circumstances of the trial but certain facts favourable, or perhaps unfavourable, to the accused which have not been mentioned at the trial. It is not enough for him to be satisfied about


the guilt of the accused. It is also necessary for him to be satisfied that, assuming certain facts which have come to light since the trial had been known to the jury, the conviction would still have stood.
What has affected us in this case is the circumstance in which the confession was obtained and the lack of corroborative evidence. My approach is quite different from that of some of my hon. Friends. They are convinced, lifelong believers and advocates of the complete abolition of capital punishment, and therefore I can appreciate their concern. I have never been an out-and-out abolitionist. I have never voted for the complete abolition of capital punishment. I have always believed that for certain classes of crimes retention of capital punishment is essential.
I speak, therefore, with even greater concern on the subject because what disturbs me is not merely that the capital penalty has been exacted but that it appears to have been exacted as a result of a miscarriage of justice. I am concerned, as I said at Question Time, about cases where there are convictions following a confession with no corroborative evidence.
The House should realise that it is not only in capital cases that concern has been felt in recent years about the conduct of the police and the way in which, in some cases they obtain a conviction. Because if concern be felt about the way accusations made against the police are dealt with, there is now sitting a Royal Commission on the whole subject of relations between the public and the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has explained that the police witness in this case, unknown to the jury, had recently been involved in certain accusations that he had persuaded witnesses to change their evidence. We know that this sometimes happens. We also know that there had been a police inquiry into that conduct and that he had been whitewashed by his police superiors.
This, however, does not conclude the matter. In fact, it has hardly any relevance to the credibility of the police

witness. One of the things which the Royal Commission set up by the Home Secretary is examining at the moment is the disquiet and concern about the way in which all accusations against the police are dealt with.
I have in my possession evidence given to me by inside sources, by reputable officers in the police, who have told me how when charges against their subordinates in the Metropolitan area are made, a police inquiry is set up with in effect direction that there should always be a whitewashing result. This is axiomatic. The Council of the Law Society has, in the last few days, made representations to the Royal Commission, which have been published urging, for this very reason, that accusations against any policeman should be the subject of inquiry by an independent tribunal.
In the case of Mr. Riley, the policeman had been exonerated by a domestic tribunal set up by his own superiors who, of course, had an interest in exonerating him because they thought, rightly or wrongly, that unless they did so it would redound to the ill-credit of the police force. But because there is this background of feeling about the way in which accusations against the police are dealt with nowadays, it seems to me that evidence of charges against the police which might not have weighed with the Home Secretary might very properly have weighed with the jury. It is difficult to know what exact degree of weight he would give to it, but I have no doubt that a jury would give great weight to it.
The other thing which is most important is that the confession was made by Riley while in the police station, without access to legal advisers or to friends of any kind. I have some reason to believe —I have heard this, but have no proof—that at the time he was under some influence of drink. In such circumstances, one is liable to say things one would not say at another time. Held in the police station, with all the pressure of the police around him, he made a confession which he subsequently repudiated on oath, and there was no corroborative evidence at all.
Those facts do not seem sufficient to me to justify a conviction in any case. still less in a capital case. If the capital


sentence, with its awful finality, is to be retained, then it is more than ever necessary that in these cases the House should be satisfied that there can be no possible miscarriage of justice.
Although the House may not have the right to interfere with the prerogative, it is entitled to satisfy itself—as I do not think any of us are satisfied at the moment—that our standards of criminal justice are as perfect and as pure as they should be. Cases do arise when there is a miscarriage of justice. This has a very serious bearing on the question of when the Homicide Act is to be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I confess the misfortune that I had to leave the Chair during the opening speech and may not, therefore, have followed all the debate, but I have some difficulty in understanding how amendment of the Homicide Act can be related to the Motion or to the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not pursue that matter. I was about to bring my remarks to a conclusion by expressing great concern about the working of the Homicide Act. There are doubts throughout the country about it. The Riley case followed upon the revelations in the Evans case. I hope that as a result of this debate there will be a review of our procedure to enable us, while not affecting the tradition of the prerogative, to express at all times any criticism that we may have about the administration of justice in any criminal case, particularly a capital case.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I join with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in welcoming the debate. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) moved the Motion with his usual clarity and sincerity. It is of great importance, and it is important that the House should be able to come to a decision on the Motion and the Amendment because, if the Amendment is passed, an end would be put to the uncertainty that is nagging the minds of hon. Members about their rights in this House.
It is important in the interests of the House that it should be perfectly clear what the rights of Members are in cases

like this. Passion will always be aroused while we retain capital punishment. The very atmosphere of the House of Commons makes passion very much more passionate.
It is an inherent part of the character of this House that we debate against each other and in between each other, discussing party matters at one moment and then matters such as this the next. It is rarely a place for cool argument. It is on such matters as this that passions become aroused. Statements are made which people genuinely believe to be statements of fact, but which, nevertheless, may be disputed by other Members.
It is horror at the penalty which leads protagonists to less balanced judgments. To debate this matter in the House of Commons is the worst possible thing to do. The House becomes a court of appeal, jaded and tired after political battles. It is the worst possible appellate tribunal and the worst possible jury.
I remind the House that Edmund Burke said that the end of the British Constitution was to bring twelve men into the jury box. Twelve men have been in the jury box in the case of Riley. The hon. Member for Islington, East and two other hon. Members opposite have spoken about this case. My information is different from theirs. I understand that there was corroborative evidence—that there was some evidence of blood, of glass in the shoe, and that the ring on the man's finger could have caused the injuries found on the woman.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Rawlinson: It can be seen that we disagree. That is why I say that it is a bad thing that these matters should be debated on the Floor of the House, and at a time when there is some feeling between the parties.
The hon. Member for Islington, East spoke about Riley making a statement while under the influence of drink. In fact, it was a written statement, written by Riley. The hon. Member also talked of the whitewashing of police officers. Many of our police are accused by persons who have interests to gain. Of course an officer will want to have a disciplinary committee, and every accused police officer is taken before such a committee. Is that to be called


whitewashing? It is a little unfair to do so, and I think the accusation is made because we are the wrong people to discuss this matter. The best evidence is the evidence of a person who confesses voluntarily.

Mr. Silverman: Unless he is forced.

Mr. Rawlinson: A retraction may sometimes be in the best interest of the person, but it may be that when he seeks and obtains the legal advice of his solicitor he changes his mind.

Mr. Leo Abse: I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman is a member of a committee which recently indicated the need for fundamental changes in relation to confessions. Is he now going against that committee in suggesting that confessions are so reliable?

Mr. Rawlinson: Of course not. I am not standing against anything. I am demonstrating that this House is the worst possible place to have these matters debated. I was a member of the Lawton Justice Committee and I was chairman of the Inns of Court Consue Committee which gave evidence before the Royal Commission on the Police. Members of that committee included some who are now judges, some recorders, and many who appear regularly to prosecute and to defend. We came to the conclusion that there was some evidence that some confessions are obtained by means of bluff and persistent questioning, and we recommended some strengthening of the judges' rules. All I am indicating is that a voluntary confession is the best possible evidence of a man's guilt which one can get, namely, if the man freely says, "I did it".
I remind the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, as other hon. Members, that there are many criticis of the advantage which is now given to the prisoner in the present English system of law. Jeremy Bentham wrote:
If all the criminals of every class had assembled and framed a system after their own wishes, is not this rule the very first which they would have established for their own security? Innocence never takes advantage of it; innocence claims the right of speaking as guilt invokes the privilege of silence….
That conception advocated by Jeremy Bentham is alien to us, but Sir James Stephens, Professor Glanville Williams,

and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who wrote a minority report, take that view. I do not agree with it, but in this case there was a confession in the man's own handwriting and the jury heard him give his evidence on oath and must have disbelieved him. How can we then say in the House at this time that we know better? I suggest to hon. Members that because of what is their sincerity and their dislike of the formidable character of the punishment they then want to pick upon each individual case, which they would not have done if the man had only been sentenced to some years of imprisonment.
I do not want to detain the House, but I repeat that the Home Secretary should be left to make these judgments and form these difficult decisions in private. Hon. Members in the House are political creatures. When Members of Parliament are Members of delegations, representing a society or some other interest outside Parliament, then they are better able to take a balanced view. But when they are questioning the Home Secretary in the House, they become political animals performing political acts. It is in the interest of justice that the present position, as I think it is set out in the Amendment, should be maintained so that there shall be no questioning or inquiry as suggested in the Motion.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has generously said that he would rather have another hon. Member winding up on his behalf, and that I feel privileged to do.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not waiving my right to reply on the Amendment.

Mr. Thorpe: I appreciate that.
The Home Secretary came to the House with a brief which was carefully prepared, but which was based on the assumption that the main point of the challenge would be as to the right to question him about the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and those were the arguments which he adduced. But that has never been challenged by those who support the Motion.
Two propositions are indisputable. The first is that the exercise of the


prerogative of mercy is not open to challenge, and the second is that Executive acts, which are the responsibility of the Home Secretary, are and always have been open to challenge. To those two propositions the right hon. Gentleman has added a third, which is novel. It is that when the questioning of such Executive acts involves an impingement on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, Questions relating to that Executive act automatically become entitled to the protective covering applied to Questions relating to the exercise of the prerogative. That is a new departure and an extension of existing practice.
The Home Secretary has said that the two matters are indivisible. It is conceded that at times it is difficult to separate the two. It is conceded that at times the one impinges on the other, but it is our submission that that is not sufficient of itself to afford the protective covering to Questions which relate exclusively to an Executive act.
The prerogative of mercy involves one thing and one thing alone—the issuing of a pardon, either a complete pardon, in which case the convicted man goes free, or a conditional pardon, in which case he will be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, or there will be commutation. Even the reprieve, although it is an indispensable procedural act prior to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, is not an exercise of the prerogative. The date of the execution is set by the sheriff and the reprieve is simply a request by the Home Secretary to the sheriff to stay his hand in order that time may be afforded for further consideration being given to the exercise of the prerogative.
Indeed, as mentioned in the article by Mr. Iwi, in The Times, when a sentence of death is passed, if a reprieve is granted, the decision is a Ministerial decision and the prerogative is at no time involved.
To back up his argument, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of what I would call the indivisibility argument, maintaining that a commission of inquiry was inextricably bound up with the exercise of the prerogative simply and solely because the sole purpose of such an inquiry would be to assist him in deciding whether or not to exercise the prerogative of mercy.
Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that is the only reason why a commission of inquiry could be set up? Why was the commission of inquiry under Mr. Scott Henderson set up? Was it not to see whether there had been a miscarriage of justice? It was set up while Christie was still under sentence of death, and there was no question at that time that he should be reprieved or that the inquiry might produce evidence or recommendations which would lead him to exercise the prerogative in respect of Christie. It was set up to inquire whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in the case of Evans. How can it be said that because a convicted man has the good fortune still to be alive, it should be less desirable to inquire whether there has been an error of judgment or a miscarriage of justice?
Even in the Podola case, there was a Section 18 reference by the Home Secretary to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to see whether Podola had been properly convicted. That was done on the right hon. Gentleman's own initiative, was an Executive act, had nothing to do with the prerogative, and would, therefore, have been open to Questions.
The real point is that it is accepted that the exercise of the prerogative cannot be challenged, and the right hon. Gentleman has produced impressive authority for that, but no authority whatever for the proposition that Executive acts are not open to question. The mere fact that an inquiry might impinge on the prerogative might make hon. Members more cautious and might make it less ethically desirable, but certainly the mere impingement per se is no reason for shifting the protective cloak over the one because the one cannot be separated from the other. The purpose of the Motion is to say that there is a dangerous extension of existing practice which must be checked and held.

6.38 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have listened with interest to the observations made by every hon. Member who has spoken, and I now want to reply to some of the comments which have been made. I agree with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that the first question for consideration is whether the Question of the hon. Member for Nelson


and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is or is not within the rule which has been adhered to for so many years. It is worth bearing in mind the words of Mr. Secretary Matthews, to which my right hon. Friend referred, uttered in 1887, when he said:
… it is highly inexpedient and injurious to the administration of justice that the circumstances of a criminal case, on which the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy depends, should be made the subject of discussion or of Questions in this House.
I should like the hon. Member for Devon, North, in view of his interesting observations, to bear this in mind. If a judicial process is terminated and if, as there was in this case, there is an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and that appeal has been dismissed and no further appeal to the House of Lords is made, should there be any inquiry that would raise doubts as to the propriety of the conviction then the only way in which that situation could be dealt with would be by the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy. Indeed, in my opinion, that is so, and there is no other way whereby, in the event of an inquiry establishing that something has gone wrong, the sentence, passed in accordance with the law, can be avoided.

Mr. Thorpe: Suppose, in a capital case, the matter had been tried and decided, had been before the Court of Criminal Appeal and been upheld, and been to the House of Lords and again been upheld, and, thereafter, there was new evidence, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it would not be possible to make a Section 18 reference for this matter to be gone into by the appropriate criminal court?

The Attorney-General: If the case had gone to the House of Lords, I am not quite sure what the answer to that would be. There is a power, it is in Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, for the Home Secretary to make reference in certain circumstances. That is a special statutory power.
I am dealing with the general proposition. Hon. Members opposite are not asking for machinery for sending the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for its view, perhaps, on the effect of the evidence. They are not asking for that to happen, but for an inquiry to be held by some other body, and the point I am making is that even if it was held

by any other body and it emerged that there might be some doubt about the propriety of the conviction, the only way in which the sentence which was passed in accordance with the law could be altered would be by the exercise of the prerogative.
I hope that I have made that point clear, because from it this follows. When hon. Members are asking for an investigation or an inquiry to be held, they are, in fact, asking for something which necessarily contemplates, if one result occurs from that investigation, the exercise of the Royal prerogative. I do not believe that we can possibly draw the line where the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. Member for Devon, North have suggested.
I do not know that any useful purpose will be served by my reminding the House of the many precedents to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which you, Sir, followed in reaching your conclusions about this question. All I would say on this part of the debate is that, in my submission, it is perfectly clear that this kind of question necessarily conflicts with the long-established practice and custom of this House.
Throughout this debate, starting with the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, great anxiety has been expressed about the facts, and I should like to put that word in inverted commas, of the Riley case. I think that perhaps it would not be inappropriate if I made a few observations with regard to an aspect of the matter on which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) spoke with such strength, raising matters with which I should like to deal.
The first, I would remind the House, is that this case was brought before a very experienced judge, Mr. Justice Barry, and before a jury who knew, from the start, from the nature of the charge, that a verdict of "Guilty" could only be followed by sentence of death. When we are considering what we have read in the papers about the case, that is something which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) indicated, we ought all to bear in mind. No jury is ready or keen to return a verdict of capital murder, and no jury will do so, unless it is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the guilt


of the accused. It was satisfied in this case, after hearing the accused and after hearing him cross-examined and the other witnesses, and must have been satisfied that the accused's confession was true.
The appeal against conviction was heard on 23rd January by the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice. The judgment of the court was short, and I should like to read it to the House. The Lord Chief Justice said:
This is an appeal by the appellant from his conviction of capital murder at Stafford Assizes. The Court has considered the matter with care, and at the hearing Mr. Northcote, appearing for the appellant, has very fairly and frankly said that he and those advising the prisoner have come to the conclusion that there is no point of substance which can be put forward in this case. In those circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
That was on 23rd January. On 5th February, the Observer published an article, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) referred and which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne must have read because many of his observations—

Mr. S. Silverman: The Home Secretary will confirm to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he asks him that I wrote to him a letter about this case a week before the Observer article appeared.

The Attorney-General: I was only saying that I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman must have read this article, because many of the points made by him are exactly the same points that were made in this article. The article began by casting doubt on Riley's confession, and doubt was cast on it by the hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech today. He said that it was uncorroborated by any piece of evidence and that there was not one scrap of objective evidence against Riley. In relation to this confession, the Observer said:
Was he "—
that is, Riley—
however, in fact subject to suggestion? He may have been.
I should like to say that there was no dispute that Riley's confession was written out by him and signed by him. There was no dispute at any time that parts of it were true. It was at his trial that Riley said that the parts that incriminated him were not, and one of the facts which

the article did not bring out was that Riley in the course of his trial admitted that before he wrote his confession the words of the caution were read out to him.
I should like to read a few short passages from the record of evidence. Riley is being cross-examined. The first question is:
You are a grown man; did you think if you made this statement admitting you went into the house and struck this old lady down that you would be allowed to leave the police station and go away?—A.: Well, I didn't think. All I thought was if I made a statement like that they would just leave me alone.
Q.: They had not threatened you at all?—A.: They had not been threatening me.
Q.: They had been kind?—A.: They were treating me kindly, but they just would not let me go out.
Q.: But to enable yourself, to let yourself be got out, you were willing to make a statement. which according to your evidence is utterly untrue, but which incriminates yourself; seriously, is that what you are saying?—A.: Yes."
Then, he was asked:
The whole of that actual statement is in your own handwriting, isn't it?—A.: Yes.
Q.: You were sat down at the desk, you were given the form and a pen to write with? —A: Yes.
Q.: You were allowed to write what you wanted to, weren't you?—A.: Yes.
Q.: In fact, part of the way through you asked to have some tea sent in?—A.: Yes.
Q.: And it was sent in?—A.: When Inspector Brumpton spoke to me about the statement, I then asked for a cup of tea.
Q.: And then towards the end of the statement you said, 'I suppose it is no use putting an apology here, is it? '; do you remember saying that?—A. Yes.
Q.: And Brumpton said, You put on there what you like '?—A.: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE BARRY: That is right, is it?—A.: Yes, I remember that."
That is the evidence of Riley on that matter. I am reading it because I think it right to do so, in view of the suggestion—

Mr. Silverman: Why not read the examination in chief?

Mr. Abse: How long was he at the police station before he made that statement?

The Attorney-General: I thought it right to do that in view of the suggestion that he was in some way induced


by Inspector Brumpton to make the statement in his own handwriting. I know that he was in the police station for some time. [HON. MEMBERS: "For seven hours."] It was less than that. Inspector Brumpton was not there in the afternoon. He came back because he heard that Riley wanted to make a further statement, and that statement was written down in those circumstances.
There is another matter to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred and to which I feel I must also refer, because it is a very serious charge. It is really a charge against the police of the deliberate suppression of pieces of vital evidence in a capital murder charge.

Mr. Abse: As in the Evans case.

The Attorney-General: I want to deal with that charge. It is the same charge as was made in the Observer, namely, that two large pieces of wallpaper had been taken down from the staircase; that they were missing and—so the hon. Member said—that nobody has seen those pieces of wallpaper since. The Observer went on to say that they were missing because they did not fit in with the police theory of the crime. That is a very serious charge in any case, and a particularly serious one in a capital murder case.
The facts were not like that at all. They were that one piece of wallpaper was taken from the staircase and another from the bedroom in which the lady died. The piece taken from the staircase was sent off for examination to see if the blood group could be ascertained, but there was not sufficient blood on it to permit of identification. That piece of wallpaper, together with the other, was present at the magistrates' court but, inadvertently, it was not put in as an exhibit. There was a reference to it at the assize court, and I understand that the defence knew all about it. It had no relevance whatsoever, because it was not possible to find out the blood group of the blood stain on it.
Despite that, it has been thought right to make this serious charge of the suppression of vital evidence by the police. It is no more than my duty to bring to the attention of the House the facts in relation to that matter, which do not

in the least degree warrant a charge of that nature being made against the police.

Mr. Fletcher: It is most valuable for the Attorney-General to state that it is part of the duty of the police to adduce any pieces of evidence, or any facts in their possession, which are favourable to the accused.

The Attorney-General: I did not put it in quite that way. The rule is to give the names of any witnesses and to produce any material evidence. This was not material evidence. I have explained why it was not put in as an exhibit. If it had been put in it would not have told either way. I am told that at the trial the defence was informed of its existence, and it is available now. I do not know where the hon. Member got his information, but he was clearly wrong when he said that nobody has seen those pieces of wallpaper since.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Attorney-General say that those two pieces of wallpaper are now in existence.

The Attorney-General: I say that the piece of wallpaper taken from the staircase is in existence.

Mr. Silverman: And the other piece?

The Attorney-General: Yes. The piece from the bedroom was made an exhibit. It is in existence, unless the exhibits have already been destroyed. I do not think that they have.
I could give other instances of criticism of the article that appeared in the newspaper, and there is one more that I ought to mention, because the hon. Member raised it. It concerns the conversation which took place between Riley and Inspector Brumpton on the way to the magistrates' court. It is alleged that the Inspector said, "Where did you put the handbag?" The Inspector has been asked about that, and he not only says that he has no recollection of saying anything of the sort; he simply does not see how he could have said anything of the sort because, after Riley's arrest and before he was taken to the magistrates' court, the police had found the handbag in its normal place, in the lady's bedroom, untouched. It is inconceivable that he could have asked that question. That is


the kind of thing which gets published and gives a false impression both of the character and conduct of the police and the administration of justice in our country.
I am sure that if the hon. Member had had the opportunity of examining the transcript he would have qualified many of his statements. I am not seeking to criticise him. I know that in the absence of a transcript it is easy to become inaccurate. But if he had seen the transcript I know that he would say that the case was different from what it appeared to be from the newspaper article. Having read the transcript, I can feel no ground for anxiety about the conclusion reached by the jury. I feel that the Court of Criminal Appeal was right when it said that there was no point of substance which could be put forward in relation to this case.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I must apologise to the House. Owing to a misunderstanding on my part, I did not rise as I had intended to do before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General spoke. My only consolation is that, as when Jonah spoke outside the walls of Nineveh there were two voices, one—if I remember rightly —a great and thunderous voice, and after that a still, small voice, so, in this case, the still small voice is mine, following that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not wish to discuss the case, nor shall I say anything about the more general matters involved, except that I wish fervently to see capital punishment abolished. I believe that to be the view of the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We do not regard the Motion as involving any difference of party politics, or anything of that sort. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) calls a Division we shall not put the Whips on. We regard this as a matter for personal judgment.
Having said that, I want to turn back to the Motion and the Amendment. They raise a comparatively narrow, but very important, point. The Motion asserts categorically, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling was something to dissent from; that it was
not in accordance with the precedents and practice of this House and imposes new,

unnecessary and undesirable limitations on the ability of hon. Members to discharge their public duties.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne for having been persistent in this matter. He raised it and made a speech with that deep sincerity on questions of this sort which we all know him to have—and made it, moreover, in an interesting and very thorough fashion.
I have looked at the precedents. I do not agree with the conclusion which my hon. Friend wishes us to accept. There can be no doubt, save in so far as any doubt is introduced by the matter of an inquiry. It seems to me that the substance of the question is this. Under our Constitution we leave it to the Home Secretary, and to the Home Secretary alone, to review the whole evidence and other matters which have not been put in evidence but which are relevant to the question of mercy. He does not act, cannot act, and ought not to act, as a further court of appeal. He exercises the functions of mercy and not the functions of justice, and that body, which has been occasionally overlooked by some speakers, the Court of Criminal Appeal, is the last word, subject to cases of appeal to the House of Lords, on questions of justice.
The right hon. Gentleman is called on, therefore, on the question of mercy, and it is equally our Constitution that in exercising his duty in that matter—and a very difficult, arduous, and trying duty it must surely be—he is not to be troubled by pressure from outside more than is inevitable, and certainly no new channel ought to be opened for pressure of that kind.
After all, a demand for an inquiry made in the publicity and the circumstances of this place is a form of pressure, just as is the asking of a Question or the moving of a Motion or something of that sort. All those latter things are, undoubtedly, on every precedent, inadmissible. I therefore conclude, on the principle of the matter, that there can be no doubt that the form in which this matter was raised is not sufficient to take it out of the ambit of the precedents.
I turn for a moment to the question of the merits which, I think, is raised by the Government Amendment. confine myself to the position of the


Home Secretary. If I put a simple question, it seems to me to be a vital one. We have at present this method of exercising on behalf of the Crown, and, therefore, in effect, of the whole community, the duty of mercy where it is appropriate to exercise it. We leave it to a single high officer of State. We leave it to an officer of State who is, I believe, the oldest of the officers of State, or at any rate of the Secretaries of State in the country; a person who, whatever view we may have of him personally or politically, is holding an office of the highest distinction, one calling for very high qualities indeed.
We leave it to that one man, and not to anyone else. On a question of this sort even he would not claim infallibility. Surely from all that we have heard today one thing is perfectly plain, that if the ultimate verdict in cases of this kind is to be given by twelve Englishmen nobody would claim that they were always infallible either. Nobody who knows juries would claim anything of the sort, but it is the best way we have so far found of doing it. What I have been listening for during the course of the debate was a suggestion, as regards the Home Secretary, of some better way of doing it. I have not heard it.
I cannot believe that pressure in any form from this place would help a bit.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is not this an additional safeguard, the proposal that an hon. Member should have the chance before the fatal action is taken of proposing an inquiry in certain circumstances in this House which might lead to an additional protection against the fatal decision being made?

Mr. Mitchison: I cannot so regard it. It adds one further piece of machinery, and apparently whether or not that addition is to be made is to depend on the actions of hon. Members in this House. I cannot think that we are the right body for that sort of purpose.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Mitchison: My hon. Friend must allow me to answer one question before he comes charging in to ask another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr.

Rawlinson) were quite clearly united on one thing, that this House is the worst possible place to try any sort of appeal, or to deal with this type of question.

Mr. Foot: I do not think Opt anybody was suggesting, certainly I was not, that the House should act as a court of trial, or retrial, or a court of appeal. What is being suggested is that the House might propose that an inquiry should take place before the decisive action occurred, an inquiry which would operate as some form of court of appeal and, no doubt, report to the House, but that is different from saying that whether a man is to be hanged is to be decided by the House.

Mr. Mitchison: I have already said, and I repeat, that I should like to see the abolition of capital punishment. My hon. Friend and I can agree on that.
If we are to have one form of procedure in one case, and another in another case, and it is to depend on whether a Motion is moved in the House, that seems to me to be complete confusion between the functions of justice and the functions of mercy in a matter of this kind. I must beg leave to differ from my hon. Friend. I assure him that many of my hon. Friends do not share his views on this question. Having said that, let us leave it there.
I mentioned that uniformity seems to be essential, and I mean uniformity of procedure. I do not mean uniformity of results. I do not think that, in general, it is a good plan to have inquiries in some cases and not in others. I would not regard the recent case in which there was an inquiry, the Evans case, as a very good justification for the practice of having inquiries. It is very much better to leave things as they stand. I therefore repeat that this is a matter which we on this side regard as one for personal judgment. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that your Ruling was wrong. I do not think that there is any room for improvement, at any rate that appeals to me, in the exercise of the function of mercy in these cases, and they are very peculiar cases.
It may be said that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is carrying out an Executive function but, whether it is called that or not, it is certainly a unique function, and is carried out in a unique way.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I understand that I have the right of reply on the Amendment. If I exercise it, I can assure the House in advance that I do not intend to speak for more than a few minutes. The late Lord Morley once said that a man may say a thing once perhaps as he would have it said, but he cannot say it twice. So I do not want to review the debate or repeat anything which I have said before.
I want to say a word to the Attorney-General in view of the remarks he made about the Riley case which, I gladly concede, were made only in reply to remarks from myself and from other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. One of his hon. and learned Friends said earlier that there could be no worse criminal tribunal than the House of Commons, and I think we all agree. But I wish—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind me saying so—that the Attorney-General had remembered that in his references to the Riley case. He seemed to me to be not only inviting this House to try Riley again, but doing it a little uncandidly.
The issue before the jury at the trial was whether Riley's confession to the police was right, or whether his withdrawal of that confession before the jury was right. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with great respect, for his consideration, that if he is to refer to that matter at all, it is a little unfair to take out of their context a few passages from the cross-examination and tell us nothing whatever about what Riley said when he was giving his own evidence under examination by his own counsel. It really is a little unfair.
There was a question about the wallpaper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us now what it would have shown, or what it did show. He has much more experience than I and he will know that if that paper had been made available to the defence at the right time they might have asked Professor Webster to examine it and he might have found other things than the prosecution found.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made one other reference, to the Court of Appeal. He said we could be quite satisfied about it, because it was admitted before the

Court of Criminal Appeal that in the appeal there was no point of substance. Of course there was not. The court of Criminal Appeal, as nobody knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is not a court of retrial. This is not quarter sessions. The Court of Criminal Appeal has no right whatever to interfere unless either the verdict was perverse, or there was some miscarriage or misdirection at the trial; and counsel for Riley quite properly admitted that in this case there was neither.
It was precisely because the points of doubt were not those which the Court of Criminal Appeal could consider that there was a case for an inquiry, and that is the point which I thought my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) failed to understand. Of course, it is perfectly clear that if we were entitled to put down Questions asking for inquiries in capital cases before execution, this could be abused. It could be used, as my hon. and learned Friend said, as a form of pressure on the Home Secretary in order to bias him in his consideration of whether to exercise the prerogative of mercy. That would be a very improper abuse of the right, and I am not saying that no Member of Parliament would ever do it. But I think that very few hon. Members would ever do it.
In the exercise or judgment of what are our rights and what is the practice of the House—I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering and other hon. Members will agree with me—we are entitled to rely on the integrity and responsibility of hon. Members. We are not always engaged in some kind of conspiracy to defeat our own rules. But because a thing can be abused is no reason for saying that it ought not to exist. There are occasions, obviously—

Mr. Mitchison: I must put myself right with my hon. Friend. I should hate him to have the impression that I doubted his integrity or responsibility, or, indeed, that of anyone else. But people do have different views about these matters.

Mr. Silverman: They do indeed. I concede to my hon. and learned Friend that if the right to ask for an inquiry were raised as a kind of engine of oppression in a surreptitious way, to get


in order a Question about the prerogative of mercy which otherwise would be out of order, that would be wholly wrong. There is such a risk involved in my proposition, but it does not deal with my point that there are other cases where an inquiry as to whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred has nothing ultimately to do with the quite different question of what one ought to do with a convicted man once it has been established that there was no miscarriage of justice.
It is not only a question of formally exercising the prerogative of mercy. There was the Rowland case which I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind. That is the case where a man was convicted of murder, but where somebody else said that he did it. It went to the Court of Criminal Appeal and the court heard the evidence of Ware. Those who talk of the sacrosanctity of confession might bear that in mind. Ware confessed to the murder of which Rowland was convicted and for which, ultimately, he was hanged.
The Court of Criminal Appeal said that it could not decide this. It said that the Home Secretary had powers of his own. He could investigate. The Home Secretary of the day did set up a court of inquiry, just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did in the Evans case and as did my right hon. Friend in the Rowland case. This was not to advise or help the Home Secretary about the prerogative of mercy but to determine whether Ware's confession was true or Rowland's denial was true, a different function.
The real question raised by the Ruling, which Mr. Speaker himself desired the House to answer, was whether a Question about such an inquiry is more like a Question relating to the prerogative of mercy or more like a Question relating to the grant of a fiat by the Attorney-General for a further appeal to the House of Lords. If it is the second, the rule does not cover it. If it is the first, the rule does cover it. I concede that this is not an easy question. My protest was only against those who think it is. It is a difficult question and Mr. Speaker invited the House of Commons to help him in deciding whether the view he took was right or wrong.
That brings me to my difficulty about the Amendment. I am in a very great difficulty about the Amendment. If I may use a frivolous comparison, it is what a football referee would call offside. If I were to withdraw my Motion and accept the Amendment, and the Amendment became the substantive Motion, and was unanimously accepted by the House, what would be the result? The result would be that the question which Mr. Speaker wanted us to answer would be evaded and avoided, and he would get no answer; because we would then have decided what we already know, that where the prerogative of mercy is concerned we cannot have Questions until the execution is over. We know that. The question is whether that rule applies, or does not apply, to Questions about an inquiry into whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Amendment that has been put down looks as if it has been put down deliberately to avoid answering the question.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wonder whether the hon. Member is correct in saying that Mr. Speaker asked this House to answer the question.

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member had come in at the beginning, instead of the end, of the debate, he would have heard all that fully explained. I do not want to take the time of other hon. Members telling him about it at this stage. That would be a little unfair.
The question would remain unanswered and the whole debate would have been wasted. We would have reaffirmed a rule which, whether we like it or not, is not being challenged in this debate. What is the good of having a debate, then? Everyone would say it was a useful debate, it was quite right to raise the matter, it was conducted very properly and, in the end, let us not answer it. That is the Amendment. Suppose we divide on the Question. Are we any better off? Is this the kind of question which can be resolved by the arithmetic of the Lobbies with the Whips on? There are no Whips on this side of the House, but they are on the other side of the House, or are they not?
This is not an easy question. If I am in order, before I sit down I should like to make this proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. I should be prepared to


withdraw my Motion and let his Amendment fall with my Motion if he will agree with me that we have reached a stage now when no harm could be done if we had another look at the whole matter in order that it could be done quietly, not with Whips, not with Divisions, not with excited or unexcited debate, but a calm, patient, judicial inquiry such as could be conducted by a Committee appointed by Mr. Speaker, or a Select Committee appointed by the House to look at the whole matter.
Maybe we would reaffirm the whole position as the Home Secretary would like it. Maybe amendments or qualifications would suggest themselves. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this would be a more profitable way of dealing with the matter after the debate than for us to rush into the Division Lobbies, declare the result and then go away leaving all our problems unresolved? Before making any decision about it, I am sure that the House will give the right hon. Gentleman leave to indicate, if he will tell us, what is his attitude to the proposal I have made to him.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: 1 speak again with the permission of the House. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) mentioned this idea to me and I have had the opportunity of consulting my right hon. and hon. Friends.

We can see the motive of the hon. Member in wishing to get this matter settled in a way he would think suitable, but on examination of his proposal we infinitely prefer our Amendment to be accepted by the House. We think that our Amendment carries on the tradition of the House in a way that has been accepted on this side and by hon. Members opposite and by many who have spoken in the debate.

Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member has put forward the suggestion, I must ask that our Amendment should be accepted. I hope still that a Division will not be necessary and that the Amendment may be accepted by the House. Nevertheless, we would like the Question to be put.

Mr. S. Silverman: I must say, in response to that, that the Home Secretary, by his intervention, has made a Division on both Questions inevitable. He knows as well as I do that the Division will be meaningless and that nothing will be decided by it. What he obviously wishes to do is to avoid putting his decisions to the test of any judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry and I hope that the House will draw the inference from that.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 253.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grimond, J.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beaney, Alan
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cronin, John
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Mallalieu. J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mendelson, J. J.
Symonds, J. B.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, Norman
Oram, A. E.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Driberg, Tom
Oswald, Thomas
Warbey, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Li. (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Zilliacus, K.


Finch, Harold
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Forman, J. C.
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Galpern, Sir Myer
Pavltt, Laurence
Mr. V. Yates and Mr. Foot.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barber, Anthony
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Aitken, W. T
Barlow, Sir John
Bell, Ronald


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Berkeley, Humphry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Ratsford, Brian
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)


Atkins, Humphrey
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Biggs-Davison, John




Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Brooman-White, R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Peyton, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitman, I.J.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Box, Donald
Hiley, Joseph
Pott, Percivall


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Brewis, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bossom, Clive
Hobson, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hocking, Phlllp N.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Phlllp
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullard, Denys
Hollingworth, John
Ramsden, James


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Holman, Percy
Rawlinson, Peter


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Holt, Arthur
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Rees, Hugh


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hopkins, Alan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, David


Channon, H. p. G.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rhodes, H.


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roots, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cole, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Ronald


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandy', Rt. Hon. Duncan


Cordeaux, Lt.-Cot. J. K.
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cordle, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Seymour, Leslie


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C.
Sharples, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Coulson, J. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smithers, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Joseph, Sir Keith
Speir, Rupert


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Stodart, J. A.


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Storey, Sir Samuel


Curran, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Studholme, sir Henry


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leather, E. H. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Dance, James
Leavey, J. A.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lindsay, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Doughty, Charles
Longbottom, Charles
Teeling, William


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Waiter H.
Temple, John M.


du Cann, Edward
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
McAdden, Stephen
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eden, John
McLaren, Martin
Thornton, Ernest


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Tomney, Frank


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
MacLeod. John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Turner, Colin


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Madden, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Sir John
Vane, W. M. F.


Freeth, Denzil
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Douglas
Wade, Donald


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Nell
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Gooch, E. G.
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitelaw, William


Green, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Naharro, Gerald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Michael
Woollam, John


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLER FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. Peel.


Hastings, Stephen
Partridge, E.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House upholds the well-established rule under which in any case involving a capital sentence the circumstances on which the exercise of the prerogative of mercy depends should not be made the subject of question or discussion in this House while the sentence is pending.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES)

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: 1 beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations. 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 182), dated 1st February 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that this Prayer and the Prayer against the Scottish Regulations be discussed together.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House really understands the consequences of that. It is quite agreeable to me if that is the common desire, but owing to difficulties which have arisen in the past I step delicately about making such suggestions myself. The time axe will fall and the Question will have to be put separately.

Mr. Robinson: I understand that, and we would prefer it that way. We have tabled these two Prayers against the Statutory Instruments increasing the prescription charges in respect of the general medical and pharmaceutical services under the National Health Service, which leaves for discussion on another occasion the charges on prescriptions issued under the hospital services and also the increase in charges on amenity beds.
This is now about the fifth round in the Parliamentary battle which was quite consciously and deliberately provoked a fortnight ago by the Minister of Health. There will be many more rounds to come as the subsequent Orders are discussed and as the two Bills now before the House pass through their various stages.
The earlier rounds of the battle have already served more than one purpose. They have certainly served to alert the public to what is happening to the National Health Service at the hands of the Government and the Minister and to warn them of the demands which will be made upon them in terms of cash in the next few weeks and months. Our earlier debates have also served to expose the utter flimsiness of the Government's excuses for the Measures they are bringing in and the total failure of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends to justify them. One further advantage is that yesterday we had an admission from two Treasury Ministers that the cost of the National Health Service today in terms of the national income was no greater than it was ten years ago. That is also a step forward, because that is what we have been saying persistently since this series of debates began.
Yesterday, we also had another piece of evidence in the form of the Vote on Account. The Vote on Account shows quite clearly that for next year there will be a decrease of £31 million in the net Estimates for the National Health Service for England and Scotland—from £631 in the current year to just a fraction over £600 for 1961 62—

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): That is not, of course, comparing original Estimate with original Estimate.

Mr. Robinson: I understood that it was a fair comparison. Presumably the right hon. Gentleman is indicating that the figure for the current year includes the Supplementary Estimate for the doctors' pay

Mr. Powell: All the Supplementaries.

Mr. Robinson: All the Supplementaries, of which that was the greatest by a large margin.
However, I believe that it is now abundantly clear that the whole set of proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is no more or no less than a calculated redistribution of the cost of the Service and a shift of the financial burden from the backs of the well-to-do to the backs of the poor and the sick.
These Regulations deal with prescription charges, and I want to remind the


Minister that his predecessor set up the Hinchliffe Committee to advise him on the cost of prescribing. That Committee reported in 1959, and stated its views on prescription charges repeatedly and very clearly. Paragraph 288 of the Report states:
We consider that the present charge "?
that is, the 1s. charge:
is a tax which stimulates avoiding action and is resented by patients and doctors as a tax on illness.
In paragraph 289, the Report says:
 We conclude … that, besides stimulating the wrong incentives, the charge … has proved disappointing financially.
The Committee went on to make constructive suggestions. It suggested that the medical profession should be invited for a trial period to co-operate in the voluntary limitation of quantities of drugs to be prescribed, and that, if this trial were successful, the Minister should seriously consider the abolition of the 1 s. prescription charge. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), issued that invitation to the medical profession, and I understand that it was accepted by the profession and a trial period of two years was undertaken. I remind the House that the whole purpose of this recommendation of the Hinchliffe Committee was that it should lead to the oblition of the charge.
Without waiting for any success or failure, the present Minister simply doubles the charge, and I should like to make one further quotation from the Hinchliffe Report, because it is a very important document. It states in paragraph 12 (lviii):
If any change in the basis of the prescription charge is contemplated in the future, it should not be put into effect without an attempt to assess in advance its probable effects by means of a special inquiry through a body such as the Social Survey.
I should be very interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether any such inquiry has been embarked on. I think that it is perfectly clear that no inquiry has even been considered, and that the Minister has gone blindly ahead in the teeth of all the evidence.
The Minister's proposals generally have produced a pretty violent reaction among the public, and they have had a

distinctly chilly reception in the Press, even in those sections of the Press that normally support the Government and the Conservative Party. But to the prescription charges there has been almost universal hostility, perhaps most marked of all amongst the doctors themselves.
On the day that the Minister made his deplorable statement, the British Medical Association said, through a spokesman:
The prescription charge is a financial barrier between the patients and the treatment they require.
There was an editorial, in considerably more trenchant terms, in the Lancet, which said:
The prescription charge is especially objectionable because for the ailing this is liable to be a severe recurrent toll on low incomes. Moreover as a weapon against the mounting cost of the pharmaceutical service, such a charge is not only blunt but wrongly aimed. If indeed the drug bill is too high the Minister should turn not to the patient … but to the prescriber and possibly to the manufacturer.
I shall return to that last point in a moment. The Lancet sums up the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for increased charges by describing them as
damaging and retrogressive ".
I have had a very large number of letters—I will not weary the House by quoting from them—from doctors and chemists, from innumerable old-age pensioners and the like. One letter was signed by 15 doctors from places as far apart as Kent and Edinburgh, condemning the Minister in the roundest terms. It is a fact that the Minister is flouting the advice he is receiving and has received from every quarter. He thinks that he knows best. I understand that it has been said of him that once he has written out a political prescription he will claim that he is right even though the patient dies,
The Minister now knows the doctors' views. He should know that they are strongly held views and views that he ignores at his peril, because here the right hon. Gentleman is in the doctors' hands. He needs the doctors as the instruments of his policy. I should like him to recall what happened when the prescription charge was last increased when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) increased it from 1s. per prescription form to 1s. per item in December, 1956. The


average cost of a prescription went up from 4s. 11½d. to 5s. 10½d. in one year; an increase of almost 20 per cent. in a year, and one that represented two and a half times the previous average annual rate of increase—and the number of prescriptions fell slightly.
There is little doubt about the reason for the increase in the cost of the prescription then. It resulted from doctors prescribing larger quantities in order to protect their patients from the worst effect of the charges. This situation was examined very closely in a survey carried out by two economists at Manchester University—Dr. Martin and Mrs. Williams. Referring to this increase in the cost of the prescription, they said:
It appears that about 40 per cent. of this increase was due to doctors prescribing in larger quantities. The strength of this reaction was such as to increase the net total prescription bill by just over El+ million instead of reducing it by £4f million 
which was what the then Minister of Health expected to be the result of his prescription charge increase. That situation will be repeated, and it will be repeated on a more massive scale.
I ask the House to reflect on what used to happen before the National Health Service came into existence. A wife of an insured person who was not herself on the panel, if she were ill, would have to go to the doctor as a private patient and, in very many industrial and other areas of England, it was normal in such circumstances for such a patient to have a consultation and a bottle of medicine from the doctor for 2s. 6d. Today, with the National Health Service, which in theory covers everyone in the land, this same woman, if she has a prescription —the average is 1·5 items on a prescription—will pay 3s., and that is 3s. in a nominally free Service as opposed to the 2s. 6d. she used to pay as a private patient for a bottle of medicine and a consultation. This is the point to which the Service has been dragged down by successive introductions of charges by successive Ministers of Health.
I wish to draw attention to a special category of doctors, the dispensing doctors. They are the men who do their own dispensing, and they are the ones who resent these charges more than anybody except, perhaps, the patients themselves. The procedure is that the dispensing doctor, when he gives his patient

the medicine, is required to charge the prescription charge and to receive cash for each item. He will then give a receipt, afterwards handing over the cash to the local executive council. Dispensing doctors are, in fact, tax collectors for the Government, and they find it an extremely distasteful as well as a time-consuming job.
The patient thinks that the doctor pockets the "bob". It will be a florin in a few weeks when the Regulations come into force. The patient feels that he is paying the doctor for his medicine, and this unconscious or subconscious misunderstanding, of course, plays havoc with the doctor-patient relationship which ought to be the proper basis for treatment.
What will the Minister do if the dispensing doctors in their perfectly just anger all decide to refuse to collect the 2s. charges? Will he discipline thousands of them, each one separately? He would do well to ponder the situation and not under-estimate the feelings of these doctors. Would it not be wiser to have second thoughts about the increased prescription charge and withdraw the Regulation altogether?
Of course, the Minister will tell us again about the measures which the Government are taking to relieve hardship. I take first the straightforward case of the patient in regular receipt of National Assistance. However simple the arrangements are made by the Minister or by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for refunds for this type of patient, it is still a very tiresome business for many of them, particularly the olden ones. It is a matter of waiting, first, perhaps, for half an hour in the doctor's surgery, then waiting up to half an hour at the chemist's to have the prescription made up, then queueing in the post office to get the refund on the prescription, quite apart from the business and, perhaps, even the cost of travelling from one place to the other.
Is there no simpler method if we are to have these charges at all? Is it not possible to institute some sort of coloured prescription form or an endorsement of some kind which the doctor could put on? After all, the doctor knows his patients. He knows that the man carrying a National Assistance book is the man whose name


is written in the book. It would be a good enough safeguard against fraud, which is always the thing which seems to worry Government Departments in situations like this. These are only suggestions, and there must be others. I ask the Minister to simplify the procedure.
The real trouble arises not with those on regular National Assistance but with the people on the hardship line who are not in receipt of National Assistance. They have to go to the local National Assistance Board office which in a rural area may be miles away. They will know—if they know anything about the arrangements at all—that when they get there they will be subjected to a means test. Many of them, perhaps most of them, will never even attempt it. The Minister must face this fact. After all, if we go on past experience, according to the figures which I obtained from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the number of people who actually receive refunds on hardship grounds represents one quarter of 1 per cent. Does the Minister really say that this is a true measure of what hardship there is, apart from people regularly in receipt of National Assistance—a quarter of 1 per cent. of all patients? Of course, the fact is that people are just not going to the National Assistance Board.
It has been said again and again in the House that the greatest sufferers of all will be the chronic sick, especially those on the borderline of National Assistance. Their prescription cost will be 4s., 6s., 8s. or even more than that. The Minister will say that special arrangements are in contemplation for these people, but all that sort of thing was said last time and, when it came to the point, it did not amount to a row of beans. It was always found to be administratively difficult or impossible to make up packs. I think that only two were made up. Now, the Minister says that he will encourage doctors to prescribe for two or three months ahead. It is not always possible to do this, and these assurances, I guarantee, will be blown away on the wind just as the previous ones were.
There have been references to the various categories of chronic sick, the diabetics and the others. The case of the epileptic has not, I think, been discussed so far in these debates. Very

many epileptics are in regular employment but, because of their medical condition, most of them are obliged to take jobs at wages well below the national average. Many of them, because they want a feeling of independence, are content to earn a wage very little more than the weekly income they could receive from National Insurance. To depress their wage still further by the extra Is. on contributions and by further prescription charges for essential drugs is not only harsh but foolish because it may well as a last straw discourage some of these people from trying to carry on in employment at all.
I am told that it is quite common for an epileptic to need three different types of tablet at once, and the doctors are constantly changing the proportions of one or the other so that there is really no point and no advantage in prescribing for months ahead. The whole situation is always fluid. Moreover, I am told that it is frequently dangerous to prescribe large quantities of some of the drugs. Will the Minister think about these cases and see whether some sort of comprehensive charge could be worked out for epileptics and, indeed, for other types of chronic sick?
Will the Minister go further and examine the possibility of drawing up a register of chronic sick, area by area, in co-operation with the general practitioners and, perhaps, the hospitals, the people on which would automatically be exempt from the prescription charges? If the will were there to do it and if the Minister were not so much more concerned about gathering in the money, surely these things ought to be possible.
I now come to the question of drug prices. As I said in the debate on the censure Motion, if the Minister really felt that he needed savings, particularly savings in the drug bill, why did not he look a little more closely at the drug prices and the profit margins? The manufacturers were mentioned in the Lancet editorial which I quoted, but they were only saying in guarded terms what nearly every newspaper in the country is saying quite openly today, what the Public Accounts Committee said and what countless doctors and pharmacists are saying. We on this side are not claiming that the drug bill is too high, certainly not that it is more than the nation can afford. We


recognise that there has been a steady stream of new and effective drugs, many of them expensive, particularly antibiotics and tranquillising drugs, which have been effecting more and more cures and getting more and more people back to work and back into the community. We welcome that.
We certainly do not say that all drug manufacturers are exploiting the National Health Service. We recognise that there are many reputable British firms and some foreign firms which are quite content to work on a reasonable margin of profit, but there are some, especially among those American firms with subsidiaries in this country, which emphatically are not so content. Whenever a question is asked about the cost of drugs, the manufacturers or their spokesmen always pray in aid the research costs. Of course, these are very considerable for many firms. I fully recognise that. We know that a great deal of research has to go into producing one successful new drug. We know that firms have to get back those costs on the small minority of successful drugs. But we cannot discover the facts of the matter. If facts are suppressed with the consistency that these facts are suppressed, then we cannot help having suspicions at least. These firms are very cagey about their. production costs and research and development costs and particularly about their promotional costs and profit margins.
I think that it can be shown unquestionably that the prices of some products of which the United States subsidiaries in this country have a monopoly are exorbitant. Take the case of a well-known antibiotic which the Minister will know is widely used in the National Health Service and which is manufactured by one of these British subsidiaries of a United States firm. It is a drug for which the Minister pays a negotiated price for the National Health Service of £64 per thousand tablets. I should like to ask him why the same drug from the same manufacturer sells in France and Holland at £28 per thousand tablets, substantially less than half the price that the right hon. Gentleman is paying. The same drug imported from those countries can be bought at £37 10s., and that includes a substantial import duty.
When a native British firm produced a virtually identical antibiotic drug and placed it on the market at a price much lower than £64, I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that not a single order was executed at that price and why the price suddenly and smartly jumped up to £64.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May we be told the manufacturer of that drug?

Mr. Robinson: The manufacturer of the drug which I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman is the firm of Pfizer.
More and more proprietary drugs are being supplied within the National Health Service. The figure is now well over 50 per cent. I believe that the proportion of proprietary drugs which are of American origin is also increasing. What we want to know is whether we are getting value for the money which we are spending on these proprietary drugs. We believe that many of these prices are inflated, and I am sure that one of the inflationary factors in the price is the cost of promotion.
Undoubtedly the United States firms have been forcing the pace in promotional expenses all along the line. The pressure on doctors and pharmacists is so great that even reputable English companies which do not want to do this sort of thing are simply forced to follow suit in order to survive. It is impossible to obtain the exact figures, but there is one American firm which is estimated to have 600 representatives calling on doctors at a cost of about £750.000 a year. It has also been stated, and as far as I know not contradicted, that there are over 2,200 representatives of drug manufacturers going round the country. That is one for every ten doctors.
Doctors are being bombarded with advertisement literature and free samples. One doctor estimated—I think that this appeared last Sunday in one of the newspapers—that he had received £100 worth of samples in five weeks. The literature which the doctors receive is not entirely medical in content. I have here a glossy magazine, also produced by an American company, which contains articles on Capri, space travel and port wine.

Dr. Barnett Stross: If the figure of 2,200 is correct, does not that mean that in salaries and


expenses about £3 million a year is being spent on this one item, representation, alone?

Mr. Robinson: On the previous calculation, I should have said that it was in excess of £2 million and may be substantially more. We can only guess because nobody knows exactly, and great care is taken to ensure that nobody knows.
I do not wish to go into detail about the gifts in kind which are received, about the "phoney" conferences on the Continent, with lavish hospitality and entertainment, the free larygascopes for every G.P. in the country, golf balls, lunches and gramophone records. The fact is that the cost of all these things goes on to the price of the product. This is done because it is very big business.
About £56 million worth of proprietary drugs were sold last year through the National Health Service. Is there no room for economy here? How much longer is the National Health Service to be held up to ransom? Why does not the Minister get a bit tough with these big pharmaceutical manufacturers instead of picking the pockets of the patients? It would not be difficult. He has the tools in his hands. He has the Patents Act, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and, above all, there is the fact that he is by far the largest purchaser of these drugs. If he wished, he could practically make his own terms.
If these measures fail, there are still others open to him. I will not embarrass him further by reminding him of what his hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) said. What we must have at least is a full independent public inquiry into the facts about the drug industry, drug costs and prices.
I have here a letter which I received, out of the blue, from a chemist who is quite unknown to me. He finished his letter with this passage:
To do as Mr. Enoch Powell has done, to reduce the chances of effective treatment, is the action of a callous individual who is out of touch with the circumstances in which ordinary elderly people live, or rather exist. In a large number of cases they will not go to the doctor at all, and in many more cases they will not be able to pay such a sum of money as is often required to ensure really effective treatment.
And yet these are the people that the Minister is going for, and not the drug manufacturers.
The Regulations against which we are praying tonight, perhaps more than any other of the Minister's lamentable proposals, will lead to real hardship and suffering. There will be more self-medication, with all its attendant dangers. The health of the nation can only worsen as a result. Some old people will suffer where, but for these Measures, they might have been relieved, and a few old people will die just a little sooner than they need. It is because these things will happen that we seek to annul the Regulations and we ask the House to support the Motion.

8.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has made a moving speech and has worried us who have listened to him by his stories of the things that, he said, will happen to these people for whom, of course, we all have the greatest sympathy. I would pay much more attention to the hon. Member if, as I said the other night, exactly the same things had not been said many years ago when these charges were first introduced. I do not believe that the hon. Member can bring any proof that those evil consequences have come. It really is not good enough to draw up a picture of the people whom we all want to help—the hon. Member knows very well that we want to help them, too, and that we are doing everything we can—and then to say that certain things will happen without being able to produce a vestige of proof.
I shall not, however, pursue that line because there are some facts which I wish to put before the House and I do not want to take too much of the time of this debate. We are not concerned tonight to debate the principle of what is happening. That principle, I repeat, was established in 1949. If hon. Members opposite have changed their minds since then, I would remind them that it is a good deal easier to make that kind of decision, if they really have changed their minds, when in Opposition than when they are responsible as the Government of the country.
The charge has existed in one form or another since 1952, for eight years, and I can find no evidence that it has made any difference to the working of the Health Service, either in the hospitals


or in the general medical service. This debate is about whether it is right in any circumstances, or in the particular circumstances which now exist, to increase the charge in the way that the Government have done.
We can agree at least on the essential facts about what National Health Service prescriptions cost. It is worth repeating these figures; they have been mentioned several times at intervals. The cost of the pharmaceutical service of Great Britain has been increasing year by year from £35 million in 1949–50 to an estimated gross cost for 1960–61 of £92 million. The average cost of a prescription increased from 3s. 1 d. in 1949 to 5s. ld. in 1956 and 7s. 4d. in 1960. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says "Salaries". There are many components in the figure. What I am stating is the facts of the increase in the bill. That is what we are establishing tonight.
I agree that part of the increased cost is due to the change in money values. I agree that the overall bill has gone up to some extent simply because there are more people in the country than there were in 1949, and there is an increasing proportion of old people. A large part of the increase is, however, an increase in real terms in the cost of the drugs actually prescribed. That is not necessarily something to regret. These new, more complex and expensive drugs represent a considerable advance in treatment. They bring benefit to the community as a whole. They enable patients to be treated at home instead of in hospital and they shorten illness, both at home and in hospital. The Government fully recognise this.
It remains a principle of the Health Service, as it always has been, that the individual patient should get all the drugs that he needs for proper treatment. It is, however, quite clear that if we have a bill which is rising for the various reasons which I have given, we must watch that it does not get out of proportion to what is possible consistent with all our other obligations. At the same time, the Government—

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclay: This is not fair. I hope that I shall not be asked to give way too often.

Dr. Stross: I shall not do that. I should like to ask the Secretary of State a simple question. Since 1949–50, the gross cost of drugs has doubled. The gross cost of the Service has also doubled and the gross cost of the hospitals has at least doubled. Why select one particular part of the Service for a charge and when will there be charges on all the other parts?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is going into a hypothetical question. The general point is quite clear. If we have a series of social services and all of them continue to increase in relation to the whole, sooner or later we shall be in trouble. Some social services have gone ahead very fast in the proportion they have taken of the whole. That cannot be allowed to continue unrestricted.
Let me deal with the measures that we have already taken to secure economy in drugs. We have the duty to ensure that the pharmaceutical service is run efficiently and economically and that the country gets full value for its money. I must make clear what we have already done to this end. We have instituted, both in England and Wales and in Scotland, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said comprehensive inquiries into prescribing practice and we have had the reports of the Hinchliffe Committee and of the Douglas Committee in Scotland. In Scotland practically all the recommendations of the Douglas Committee on the family doctor service have been given effect. I should like to acknowledge the co-operation that we have had from the medical profession in doing this.
We are now giving the doctors as much information as we effectively can to help them to prescribe efficiently and economically. Apart from the British National Formulary—which, for the benefit of the uninitiated, is produced jointly by the medical and pharmaceutical professions —and also "Prescribers Notes" and a new comprehensive "Prescribers Handbook", both produced by the Health Departments, we send the doctors statistics which show the cost of their own prescribing compared with that of their colleagues. More effective steps are being taken to secure prompt and regular investigation of doctors' prescribing where at first sight, the costs seem to be unduly high. Similar measures are.
I know, being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in England and Wales.
We have also arranged between us for a new journal to be produced by outside experts which will give the doctors objective evaluations of new drugs. The first issue will be coming out in about six weeks' time. It sounded from the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, in opening the debate, as if we were doing nothing about that side of the work. We are doing a great deal.
I come now to the prices which the manufacturers charge for drugs. We have recently concluded with the industry a new voluntary price regulation scheme governing the cost of proprietaries, which now account for about 85 per cent. of the cost of all drugs. As my right hon. Friend told the House last week, this new scheme has opened the means of very effective negotiation with the industry which is being vigorously pursued. We are conscious of the strength of the position of the Government, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred.
In fairness, however, and particularly in view of some of the hon. Member's remarks, I must say that the Health Service and the people of the country owe a great deal to the progress which the drug industry has made in developing new and more effective treatment agents. The hon. Member made a lot of fun, if one can call it that, about advertising practices. I know very well that advertising can be argued about for a long time, but it should be remembered that the whole object of that advertising in the long run is to increase volume and thereby to reduce the ultimate costs. It cannot be done in any other way. If costs are to come down, the volume is necessary; and, of course, the advertising is designed to that end. I do not say that all the advertising is right, but I ask hon. Members to keep that in perspective.

Mr. K. Robinson: Surely the hon. Member does not want to go on record as at any rate appearing to condone the methods of advertising I have described and which he knows perfectly well take place.

Mr. Maclay: I have tried to say that I do not consider all methods of advertising proper or right, or the kind I would

like to indulge in myself if I were able to, but it is not right to condemn out of hand all advertising, even intensive advertising, although there may be some methods which we do not like.
Having set all those measures in train we were faced with a situation which my right hon. Friend described last week, of very large additions to the Health Estimates which we felt should be made if the Service was to develop as it should. The money had to be found. It is easy to say that it should be found by additional direct taxation but all Governments recognise that there must be a limit to the burden of direct taxation. No responsible Government can take direct taxation to the point at which it begins to have an adverse effect on the whole economy of the country and the prosperity upon which, among other things, the yield of taxation ultimately depends. Hon. Members opposite know that they were faced with exactly the same problem when they were in power. We, therefore, decided that a part of the increased cost of prescriptions should be met by increasing the prescription charge. We had to make a decision of some kind like this and even if it is a brave decision or an unpopular decision we believe it is the right one in order to maintain progress in a service we are determined to maintain throughout. It is wrong to suggest that this represents an attack on the Service.
In the opening speech this evening the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North did not touch on the emasculation of the Service or "knocking it to bits." I cannot remember all the phrases that have been used but they included "undermining" and others. The phrase was used that it was a calculated shift of the method of getting money. It does not really add up. My right hon. Friend gave the House last week a very impressive account of the many ways in which this Service has developed in the years since we came into power and if I had been in order I would very much have liked to tell the House precisely what has happened about the development of the Service in Scotland. I dare not do it on this Order.
May I turn now to the arrangements to avoid hardship. We are being told that these charges will cause hardship, particularly to patients with chronic illness. The hon. Member for St. Pancras,


North developed that at some length, and I hope the House will forgive me if I reply to that in a little detail. We realise that the incidence of these charges will vary, and it is most important to get this into perspective.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House some figures which have a very strong bearing on this problem. They are not official figures, but they are taken from an article in the British Medical Journal in November last year written by three Scottish family doctors practising in partnership whose prescription costs had been criticised by the local medical committee for being too high. In the course of the article, which gives their reasons for the costs which were being criticised, they included an analysis of those patients who required drugs over a period—what they called maintenance therapy.
In a period of three months there were 850 such patients who got on an average four prescriptions each—that is, they paid on the present basis 4s. each in a period of three months and on the new basis they will pay 8s., or 8d. per week. Within the 850 patients there were 77 chronic rheumatic patients and they got on the average three prescriptions each. There were 51 bronchitis patients who averaged six prescriptions each, 16 diabetics who averaged four each and 15 cardiac cases, who averaged seven each. These are averages and hon. Members will realise that some individual patients would get fewer prescriptions and some more.
With this reservation, however, the figures—which have been very difficult to get up to now—suggest that the number of prescriptions and the cost for the individual patient, even the chronic patient, is not as high as it might have seemed from some of the speeches that have been made on this subject. I repeat that these are not my figures. They are the doctors' own figures and they were doctors whose prescribing costs were on the high side. These are facts which are very well worth studying.
As regards the number of patients in this sample who were receiving treatment for more than one illness, there were, out of a list of 4,316 patients of the whole practice, 111 suffering from two chronic conditions, 14 suffering from three chronic conditions and three suf-

fering from four chronic conditions. It is worth getting these figures into perspective because, listening to the speeches we have heard, one would imagine that the chronic sick were in need of prescriptions with the utmost regularity. They need them regularly but not with the utmost regularity. I agree that this is a sample from a big practice but it is a sample and I commend it for study.
We have always recognised that because of the circumstances of a particular patient, or because of a series of illnesses in the same family, a prescription charge, which can be readily paid by the vast majority, may be liable to produce hardship. We know that. I would repeat again the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave last week to examine any case of potential hardship which may be brought to our notice. We have had a good deal of discussion with the doctors to try to devise what are called "multiple packs" to avoid a series of items for what is essentially one treatment. There are eleven such packs in use, and not two as the hon. Member said. So far it has not been possible to go further.
The doctors already know that where a patient will require the same drug over a considerable period they can prescribe the whole quantity required at the outset and so avoid repeated prescriptions. I realise the danger of that, but it is a necessary thing as well. That can be done only where the drug will remain effective when stored in the patient's house. If hon. Members have any further suggestions on these lines to put forward my right hon. Friend and I will consider them very carefully.
We wish it to be as widely known as possible that those patients who do find difficulty in meeting the charges should not hesitate to apply for a refund. This is something to which they have a right if they are in need by the standards which the National Assistance Board applies. The arrangements applied by the National Assistance Board have been made as simple as possible. The hon. Member touched on them and I think I should give them in a little more detail because it is extremely important that they should be realised.
A person already receiving assistance has simply to ask the chemist for a


receipt when paying the charge and to take the receipt to the post office or, if he is an unemployed person, to the employment exchange. The charge is then automatically refunded when his weekly allowance is paid, or he can get the refund before his normal pay day if he prefers. If, exceptionally, he has no money to pay the chemist, he can get it in advance by applying at the Board's local office.
The Board also considers the marginal case of the person not already receiving assistance. It has to apply its normal standards of assistance, but it does this in a broad and flexible way and in a spirit of humanity, as anybody who has had any contact with the National Assistance Board knows.
To have their cases considered, people in this position—that is those not already receiving assistance—can get a combined receipt and application form from the chemist and they either take it or post it to the Board's office. If they call personally, the application will be dealt with there and then. If they post the form, an officer will visit the applicant at his home within the next few days and make a payment if one is needed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members ought not to interrupt because they make it more difficult to get over to the public what is the position.
I also ask hon. Members not to say what I have had thrown at me outside the House, namely, that this is National Assistance. It is the gravest disservice that any hon. Member can render to the people whom we all want to help to decry National Assistance. It is theirs as of right, just as are family allowances or anything else.
The arrangements for applying by post should get over any risk of serious inconvenience to people living in remote rural areas, particularly the elderly or sick who cannot get about and see to their own affairs themselves. It may be said that the patient must still get out to the post office. But the patient will almost invariably be relying on someone else—a friend, a relative or perhaps a neighbour—for services such as shopping and collecting any weekly pension or benefit. This friend will usually be able

to send off the combined receipt and application form when getting a prescription dispensed.
If someone who is chronically sick requires a prescription regularly or frequently, the National Assistance Board's officer will be able to give him a form and a franked envelope on the first occasion, if he is found to be in need of assistance, which will save him trouble on the later occasion. We also provide a poster for exhibition in chemists' shops indicating that advice on how to apply to the National Assistance Board for a refund of prescription charges will be given on request. It is very important that these provisions should be known. We all know that in any system there are always people who are on the margin and we must make certain that they are provided for, and this we are doing our best to do.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about bus fares in scattered rural areas?

Mr. Maclay: I have given details of the sources of help and I do not believe that anyone can say with justifiable conviction that these added charges will damage, far less wreck, the Health Service or the health of individuals. With the steadily rising level of earnings throughout the country, the added charge should not present a problem to the vast majority, and the means are there to help those in need.
I repeat that hon. Members opposite have no monopoly of human feelings. We are concerned with the health of the nation. We are concerned with the wellbeing of individuals and we are concerned about the progressive development of social services to which all parties have made their contribution. This is made clear from our record of the last nine years and is understood and appreciated by the nation as a whole.

Mr. Dodds: Will not the right hon. Gentleman speak about bus fares?

8.34 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have listened to the best part of this debate and our recent debates and this subject, and what I have not heard I have read. I think that the explanations which have been offered for


the additional charges on people who require medicines are about the weakest that I have ever heard.
Speaking from considerable experience, I believe that these new charges will undermine the new Mental Health Act, because that Act is designed as far as possible either to keep people who suffer from mental illnesses out of hospital, or to bring them out of hospital as soon as possible back into the community so that the incidence of mental illness will not be quite so pinpointed as it has been under the old Act.
From my knowledge of my own area, and that gained by talking to organisations throughout the country, I am certain that these additional payments for drugs and medicines necessary for people suffering from mental illness will drive far more of them into hospital than they will keep out. Consequently, that means higher costs, because the cost per patient week in hospital is rising all the time. It should be the intention of the Ministry to keep people in the community, if possible, by seeing that they are regularly and easily, and without worry, supplied with the medicines they require in order to keep them out of hospital altogether.
During these last few weeks I have listened to all sorts of explanations from the Government. I am not interested in how much more the Health Service is costing. The country is wealthy enough to pay. There are enough wealthy people and industries to pay very much more than the increases in the Health Service costs. We talk of increased costs and charges, but let us also look at the amount of wealth made in take-over bids since the Government took control in 1951. There is any amount of money available there to cover the small increases in the cost of the Health Service.
The Minister of Health grins. He has no heart. He was put where he is to do the job that he is doing, because no one else was prepared to do it. I do not think that I am incorrect when I say that his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), was not prepared to do this, so the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was brought in to do it.
Those of us who have known the right hon. Gentleman since he came into this

House in 1950 know the line in economics which he takes. He hates the prospect of the ordinary persons having the opportunity to get a little more. He would rather charge people who cannot afford to pay than make these charges on those who have the wealth. The right hon. Gentleman screws his face up now. It is difficult for him to understand, except when he is standing at that Dispatch Box, talking in terms of millions of pounds and explaining why these charges are necessary. The ordinary people do not understand all the arguments put not only from that side of the House, but from this side as well. All they understand is that it will cost them more to be ill, though they have only a small amount of money.
The right hon. Gentleman will be a murderer if any person in my constituency dies because he is not able to purchase drugs and medicine, which the doctor says he needs, because he cannot afford to pay for them. That is how the right hon. Gentleman and the Government stand over this position. This is brutal—

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther - Gray): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I would advise the House, if I may, that I saw quite a number of hon. Members rise to speak when I called the hon. Lady. We are much restricted in time, and the only hope of getting in most hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate is to keep as strictly as can be to the Motion.

Mrs. Braddock: That is an amazing statement for you to make, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not challenging it, but this is the first time that I have attempted to speak in these debates, although I have been present throughout them. Surely I am entitled to make my case against the increased charges in the way in which I think fit, and not in the way which someone else thinks fit.
I have a big responsibility for my constituency in Liverpool, where we are desperately trying to reduce the number of mentally sick going into hospital. These people have to have a regular supply of medicines and drugs, and if they cannot pay for them their doctors automatically admit them to hospital where they can get them. Yet the cost


of a patient in hospital is £20 or £30 a week, even in an ordinary hospital.
I said that I was not concerned with the cost of the Service. Anyone who works when he is well, whoever he is and whatever his job, is entitled, when he is ill, to receive the best services that the country can afford, and to do so without cost to himself. We know that the Tory Party does not like the Health Service. If it did, it would not interfere with its organisation. If hon. Members opposite were interested in the Health Service, then, instead of increasing charges, they would be setting about improving the industrial health organisation and ensuring that everything was available to keep people at work instead of being off work sick for days at a time.
I do not object to the Government studying the problem of increased costs, but let them not always consider those costs on the basis of trying to recover them from those people least likely to be able to bear the burden. Let them study administration and the cost of drugs, and so on, where they would save very much more than they will get from this increase in prescription charges.
In my constituency, there are many people whose incomes are just above the maximum for the National Assistance Board to return their prescription charges to them. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us that this expenditure could be met through the Assistance Board, but the Government do not seem to realise that when people are sick they want less and not more worry. The fact that they have to go through all this process to obtain a refund of their prescription charge is a worry to them.
I think that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that if people could not afford to pay their prescription charges they should get the amount paid before they bought their medicine. That is new to me. I have never heard of such a case and I have always understood that the person goes to the chemist and pays for the prescription and then, if necessary, obtains a refund from the Assistance Board. I have never met a case when a person has been able to go to the Assistance Board with his prescription saying that he could not afford to pay for it and applying for money to meet its cost.
People on National Assistance have to pay out of their weekly National Assistance payments the amounts charged for their prescriptions, which they can then reclaim from the Post Office. They do not get it before they have to pay out, and I am certain that the increase will create many more difficulties. Living in Liverpool, and knowing the conditions there for the length of time that I have done, I am certain of one thing. I loathe anyone who makes it necessary to have a means test before people can obtain the things which they ought to have of right. I hate the means test, and so do the people in Liverpool, because they have lived through it. To continue in this affluent society with the Tory Party always in the position of enforcing a means test on people on the lower standards. makes me sick.
I agree that these people deserve what they are getting because of what they did in the last General Election, and what I should like to see is all those people who supported hon. Members opposite having to pay the increase on their prescriptions and those who did not support them being able to be taken out of it altogether.
I know that there will be difficulties. I know that people will have to go short, that it will make it difficult for the doctors and for the liaison between the hospital service, the general practitioners and the health authorities in establishing the sort of Health Service we want to establish under the new mental health arrangements. It will be much more difficult, and we shall not be able to persuade people whom we think ought to be at home in receipt of attention for mental illness to go to the doctor, when they know that it will cost them so much more to obtain their prescriptions.
I know about the cost of prescriptions, the cost of which is based upon the cost of the drugs which people have to have, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has already asked the Government to look into the question of the cost of drugs. How much is it costing the Government to obtain for patients the drugs they require? If the Government would start at that end, instead of at the bottom, I am quite sure that they could save more than the amount represented


by the increased charge they are putting on prescriptions.
You have reminded me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that many other hon. Members want to speak, and I should like to finish by reading extracts from two letters which I have received which show that there will be very great difficulty about this increased cost. I happen to be a vice-president of the British Diabetic Association, because my mother happened to be a diabetic and needed a lot of attention and a lot of drugs, though, thank goodness, she did not have to go through a means test to obtain them. I became associated with this organisation because I know the very great hardship and difficulty which people who suffer from diabetes have to meet when they have to have continual supplies of drugs, insulin and tablets.
I have received the following letter, dated 12th February from the secretary of the Liverpool district branch of the British Diabetic Association:
The proposed increase in the prescription costs of the National Health Service is going to be a great burden to many diabetics, who through no fault of their own have to have continuous prescriptions of three or four items in order to live. I know that doctors were given permission to prescribe up to three months' treatment when the charge was raised to a shilling per item. Many patients can take advantage of this, but there are many for whom it is not wise that such a large amount of drugs should be available. These are the people for whom I am most concerned.
I understand that what is known as a comprehensive prescription is available for new diabetics. This consists of a supply of all the items necessary to a diabetic, such as insulin, or tablets, syringe, needles, cotton wool, surgical spirit and urine testing reagents. If this service could be extended to cover all subsequent prescriptions it would do much to mitigate the hardship which will certainly be caused by the 2s. per item charge. May I ask for your support? 
That society is trying to deal with a very difficult illness, from which many people suffer. People who have it go to work and make the best of it. Whether they want to or not, they have to have regular prescriptions.
I should like to quote from another letter from a woman living in Liverpool, who says:
 As you are aware, we do not visit the doctor just for a few pills. We have to go, while life lasts, for our regular supply of insulin, needles, cotton wool, surgical spirit, etc., and at 2s. per item it is going to be

expensive. The promised diabetic pack is never heard of these days.
That is from a diabetic who says that she will be in difficulty because of the increased costs. Other chronically ill persons will be in a similar position.
This charge will cause people great difficulties, and I shall agitate throughout the country whenever I can against a Government which are prepared to undermine the Health Service as originally intended and to place the burden upon those who are least able to bear it, namely, those who suffer chronic sickness and the old people—people who cannot get about as others can. In a country which can produce so much, and which is supposed to have an affluent society, I shall never agree that people who need medical attention should be charged for the drugs, surgical appliances and other things they require. These things should be at their disposal completely free of cost right from the beginning of their illnesses. They are living in a country which has plenty of money at its disposal, and which should be using that money to see that our Health Service is completely free and available for all those who need it.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) feels very dissatisfied with the new prescription charges, as one would expect. Anybody who has been in the House for many hours during the last few days and nights will have gained the impression, from the speeches of hon. Members opposite, that some sort of wild flame of indignation is spreading through the country, [HoN. MEMBERS: "That is true. That is what I thought would be said. The new town of Basildon is in my constituency. I assure the House that many people there thoroughly, sincerely, and heartily disagree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange about the Minister of Health. The hon. Lady said that my right hon. Friend had no heart. Because of these prescription charges, and because of the efficient way in which he proposes to run the Health Service and improve it to fulfil its destiny, he is able to produce plans for building hospitals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I interrupted the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) because I thought that I should keep the debate as closely as possible to this Prayer on the prescription charges. I hope that the hon. Member will try to make his speech accordingly.

Mr. Gardner: I do not want to take this matter too wide, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange.
I want to deal with the cost of drugs. It is disturbing to know that the £74 million we spent on drugs last year was about double the sum we spent on drugs in 1949–50.

Mr, Laurence Pavitt: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the cost of drugs, will he at the same time deal with the decline in the percentage of referals to hospitals by general practitioners as a result of using drugs and giving treatment at home in comparison with the cost of hospitalisation?

Mr. Gardner: I do not want to be misunderstood. I am making this point about the increase in the cost of drugs because there is a secondary point which I want to emphasise. In 1949–50 the cost of the ingredients was 3·5 per cent. of the total cost of the Health Service. This year the cost of the ingredients is likely to be about 6·5 per cent. This is an alarming figure, and one has to ask oneself whether we are becoming a nation of drug addicts and medicine men.
One of the serious problems to be considered is whether doctors are over-prescribing. Are steps being taken to see that good husbandry is being exercised in medicine?
The other aspect which ought to be considered is the pharmaceutical industry. This industry has a great deal to be proud of. It produces life-saving and wonderful drugs, and there are millions of people who owe their lives to this industry. I agree that we ought to criticise the industry when it deserves criticism, but we ought not to overlook the wonderful work it does. In addition, one must remember that the export record of this industry is one of the most successful of any industry in the country.
It exports £40 million worth of goods, which is about the same amount as it sells to the National Health Service; and through its association it entered, last December, into a voluntary agreement with the Ministry of Health about drug prices. The amount of money spent annually on research runs into millions of pound.
Having said that, one must ask whether the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for unnecessary costs for drugs. It would appear that the amount of evidence available at present is inconclusive—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was the finding in the second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Nonsense.

Mr. Gardner: The hon. Member says "nonsense", so perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the Report. In paragraph 18 it states:
The evidence adduced before Your Committee was insufficient to enable them to give an assurance to Parliament that prices charged to the Health Service were no more than fair and reasonable.
It goes on to say of the information about the prices charged:
This information, while indicating high profits, is inconclusive.
All I am asking is that in the interests of the National Health Service and of this industry, with its fine record, there Should be an attempt made to get better evidence so that we may come to a reliable conclusion.
It is true that in the United States recently Senator Kefauver, sitting with the American Senate and the Trust Monopoly Sub-Committee, came to the conclusion, after a review of all the evidence available, that the high prices of drugs in the United States was caused by what he called inflated profits. I say with sincerity that I do not believe that that state of affairs necessarily obtains in this country. The curious and perhaps the promising feature of the industry here, so far as it has been investigated, is that the prices charged would appear to be fair and reasonable. I say that because in February of 1959, as hon. Members will remember, the Minister of Health investigated the prices being charged by the insulin manufacturers. After investigating the costs and profits


the Ministry came to the conclusion that they were fair and reasonable.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) asked my right hon. Friend whether he was satisfied that we are getting value for money from the drug manufacturing industry. I think it is in the interests of the National Health Service that we should know the answer to that question. Only today I was sent through the post a pile of advertising matter. I find that some of this advertising is excellent and most beautiful, but I cannot avoid the impression that there are many advertising pamphlets and other means of advertising in which are elements of wasteful expenditure.
One could not help feeling that if a doctor's clinical judgment were to be affected by two of the advertisements I saw, which in quality rose little above that of a detergent advertisement, it would be wrong. If his judgment were not being affected, obviously it would be a waste of money, All I ask—and I should have thought it in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry as much as the interest of anyone else—is that the Minister should consider making inquiries into this side of the drug bill to see if in fact there is any foundation for the suggestions made from time to time that an unnecessarily large amount is being spent on advertising drugs.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Llewelyn Williams: The hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), in his opening sentences, informed the House that he was not aware of any deep disturbance in his constituency about the matters we are discussing this evening and matters kindred to them. I beg leave to doubt that assertion very much. In over ten years in this House I can truthfully testify that, not even excepting Suez, I have never known such an eloquent angriness surging in the hearts of the people I seek to represent as there is over this question.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred to the almost universal repudiation in the national Press—and this goes for the local Press, too— of these prescription charges and increases. It may well be that the Conservative Government,

entrenched as they are with their 100 majority in the House, are able to ignore even the newspapers which normally support them and their policies, but I wish to underline what has been said by my hon. Friend that not even the Conservative Government can afford to ignore the universal repudiation expressed by the doctors.
The British Medical Association, which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered as supporting the political outlook and philosophy of the Labour Party, immediately came out in vigorous protest against these proposed increases, particularly in regard to prescriptions.
My own family doctor is a Scot, like you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Unlike some of my Scottish colleagues, he is quiet and restrained. [Laughter.] Perhaps I may be more diplomatic and put it the other way round: he is not as eloquent and loquacious as my Scottish hon. Friends. He could hardly contain himself in a conversation about what he regarded as this iniquitous business.
I would not use the phraseology employed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North in describing the Minister of Health. Perhaps the Minister and I have certain affinities which are not present in the case of my hon. Friend and the Minister. I do not regard the Minister as a callous man. However, I say to him deliberately that I am frightened of him. I am frightened of his intellectual rigidity, his intellectual inflexibility, and his inability sometimes to approach some of the great problems which will confront his Ministry in the future, as they have confronted it in recent weeks, with that elasticity and imagination which are more necessary in the Ministry of Health than in any other Ministry.
What worries my hon. Friends and me is that this will not be the end. I am trying to think ahead. Where will the axe fall next? There have been three Conservative Governments since 1951. The first Conservative Government had a majority of about 16. The second Conservative Government were a little more confident; their majority had increased to 50 or 60. This Conservative Government have a majority of over 100.
Little by little, in a piecemeal fashion, never by one fell blow, attacks are being


made on the Service. In the first instance, it was 1s. on the prescription sheet. When the Conservative Government felt more confident, they increased it to Is. per item on each prescription sheet. They also increased contributions. Now much wider destructive influences are bearing upon the Service. In the first place, it was a chiselling away. In the second place, it was a mallet. Now the hatchets are out, and we are very disturbed. I wonder if it is possible, even at this late stage, to convince hon. Members opposite that their tampering with the Service will have repercussions the gravity of which may be beyond their comprehension.
I do not suppose that the Minister thought it fit to consult the trade unions, but he could have done so. It is doubtful if he consulted the doctors. During our debates in the last few days one thing has struck me very forcibly. It is the seeming inability of hon. Members opposite to understand why we feel so deeply about these issues. Let me disabuse them now of any idea they may have that ours is a synthetic indignation, brought about by such adventitious considerations as to whether or not we are a united party on some other issue. If they cannot realise that they are deeply concerned about this matter I am afraid there is a very rude and sharp awakening ahead of them.
In some matters my approach may sometimes be different from that of my colleagues, perhaps because of my vocation before coming to this House. I have always been prepared to make a distinction between Conservatives and Conservative thinking. I would suggest, without offence, that Conservative thinking, among other things, is very often an admixture of cynicism, patronage and enlightenment. Sometimes one element obtrudes itself more than others.
I do not deny that there are some very fine things to be put to the credit of the Conservative Party, and I am happy to be able to declare my honest view that there are Conservative hon. Members who are greater than their own political thinking, and they must feel—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep as closely as he can to the Prayer which is under discussion.

Mr. Williams: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what I sought to say was that there must be a tremendous amount of uneasiness in the minds of some hon. Members opposite about this 2s. prescription charge.
By the same token, I am prepared to admit—and I do not like saying this—that there is also a distinction to be drawn between Socialist thinking and Socialists. Our Socialist thinking is an admixture of idealism—I suppose that some hon. Members opposite would call it misguided idealism—genuine human sympathy, and economic understanding of issues. Some of us on this side may sometimes fall short of the demands of that idealistic thinking, but it is on an issue like this one of the Health Service that we see the basic difference between the two types of political thinking.
Let me put the matter in a much closer and more human perspective. Tonight, I think of four and a half million old-age pensioners. More than a million of those are recipients of National Assistance benefits or supplementations and the 2s. charge will not fall on them at all. I have heard it said from this side—and it has never yet been contradicted from that side—that we have today about a quarter of a million people who, by the most stringent tests, would be entitled to National Assistance supplementation but who, for different reasons—maybe pride, maybe ignorance, but for some reason—do not receive those benefits.
I mention ignorance, Mr. Speaker, because a few months ago I made a study of loneliness in this country—we are not always as imaginative as we might be about that social and human problem. In 1951—and I am sure that the figure is much larger now, because it had been increasing at an alarming rate in the twenty years before that—over one million people lived alone. Not all these people were old, of course— the majority were women—but my own personal exprerience convinced me that there were thousands of old people who even now did not know what was available for them in the Welfare State. This cost will fall very heavily on thousands of people in that category.
People earning low wages will be harshly hit. I am not indulging in hyperbole or exaggeration. I will give a simple


illustration of what 1 mean. On a day since the Minister announced the charges in the House—and a very black day it was —one of my constituents visited me in my home. I shall not enlarge unduly on the simple interview which took place, but it was a very sad interview. He was an old man, over 80 years of age, and this was the cause of his concern. His wife's sight is growing worse and worse, and she is to see an eye specialist to find out whether she has now reached that percentage of blindness which will entitle her to have the increased blind person's pension.
This man, I know him well, is no scrounger. He is no parasite. He is as good a type of man as one will find in our whole community. He has led a fine life. He has been a church officer for many years. He was by no means one of the "What-can-I-get-out-of-it?" types. I asked him what his worry was. He is on National Assistance. His reply was, "If she gets the increased pension because of her blindness, with these new charges—and both of us are in indifferent health—we may find that we lose our National Assistance benefit "and will be worse off than before.
I was able to assure him, as the Minister and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have assured the House, that hardship cases of that kind will be considered. But the whole point of my reference to that example is to put this question directly to the Minister. Does he think in February, 1961, that a person of that type should have to deliberate in his mind in that sort of dilemma? Is this the best we can offer people who have lived as they have lived? I know that man and, although I think he is not of my political persuasion, I know that he has been sadly disappointed in the Conservative Party and the Government's record on this issue.
I come now to another example which takes me back some years. I hope the House will be indulgent as I recount it. I was called to the death-bed of a man I had known for many years. He was slightly pneumoconiotic, slightly diabetic, and he was dying in the agony of angina and hypertension. He died a few hours after the little conversation I had with him. He had a very wry, almost grim, sardonic sense of humour. He said to me, "This is a nice kettle of fish. With

all this terrible pain, the doctors are changing the prescription two or three times a day. If this illness goes on for a long time "—the Conservative Government had just introduced the ls. per item—" it will cost a pretty penny ".
It so happened that his financial worries were completely unnecessary. I knew that he had children who would easily see to all that side of things. But then he said—and, knowing him well, I knew that it came from his heart—" It seems unjust that at the very time a man is ill, the very time when he cannot fend for himself, he has to meet these increased charges. Whatever you do in Parliament, fight for justice and fight against injustice ". That story is literally and absolutely true, because that man was my own father. I would not be in this place had he not left me, as a legacy, a determination to fight injustice.
I honestly and sincerely believe that for a Minister to come to this House and to impose charges on sick people cannot be justified in any way. Goodness knows, illness is not a luxury. It is bad enough when one is ill, but for the Minister to say, "I want this increased charge from you" is going too far.
I hope that I have conveyed to the House, not only my own personal feelings, but the feelings of every hon. Gentleman on this side. The best way that you, Sir, could have conducted this series of debates would have been to allow every one of the 257 Labour Members of Parliament to speak for four minutes on what they believe to be the wickedness of this matter. Surely that would have convinced the Government.
Before I entered the Chamber I read once again, as I am sure all of us have read many scores of times. the font, the original inspiration, of all health services. I hardly need say where I found that original inspiration. For those who do not know their Bible, it will be found in Luke, Chapter 10. I know that the Minister of Health is a religious man and that he will know the context of this quotation:
… and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said


unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee.
The Minister's attitude seems to be, "We will pay two pence, but then he will have to have a means test. If his expenses come to more than two pence, he will have to pay a contribution ". That attitude is not worthy of a great Minister of Health.

9.29 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: We have all been much moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams). It would be quite impossible to attempt to join issue in any way with him after such a speech, but perhaps one evening I shall have the opportunity of having a private conversation with him.
There is one word to which I think the hon. Gentleman will respond and that is the word "charity". I ask him, out of his charity, to believe that there may be some hon. Members on this side of the House who feel very deeply that the only way to preserve what is great and good in the National Health Service is to underpin it with some new finance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Undermine it."] I am not addressing myself to those hon. Members who are mocking. I am addressing myself to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know and respect greatly. I ask him out of his charity to believe that there may be a few hon. Members here who feel very deeply about the need for maintaining this service.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to assume and to say that hon. Members who disagree violently with him on this issue are mocking?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it involves a point of order. It is not necessarily insulting or un-parliamentary. It may be an accurate or inaccurate description of the hon. Member's impression.

Sir H. Linstead: If the word is offensive, I withdraw it immediately.
The point which I wanted to put to the House arises from the fact that in another capacity outside this House I am secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, and in the last

few weeks I have had from pharmacists in various parts of the country letters stating why they believe that these increased prescription charges are a mistake. Pharmacists do not receive personal benefit from these charges. They have only the thankless and, sometimes, the painful task of collecting them for my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, they and those doctors who in country districts supply medicines, are the people who come into direct contact with the public at the time when payments for prescriptions have to be made. Their views are important and should be taken into account in assessing the effect of these charges.
The summary of the opinions that have come to me can be put briefly as follows. It is clear that many believe that some of these charges will create hardship for deserving patients. They believe that some prescribers, in an endeavour to help patients, are likely to go to such expedients as prescribing one item for two members of a family. They say that there may be cases where a prescriber will omit a desirable item under pressure from the patient, who may want to limit the number of charges he has to pay. There is no doubt that one effect of the charges will be to increase the quantities and, possibly to increase wastage.
It is said that another effect will be to encourage self-medication, because a new habit will tend to develop when the patient pays the first 2s. of the cost of the medicine. Then, there is the general criticism that it involves the prescriber and the patient in a sort of conspiracy to defeat the charges. It is a little difficult to put it precisely, but it is both an undesirable element in the Service and a barrier to a proper doctor-patient relationship. Those are the sort of criticisms that have come to me from the people who have to handle these problems daily, and they are worth passing on.
As I have said earlier in this series of debates, my personal fear about hardship is not that there will be hardship at the National Assistance Board end of the scale, nor with, it may be, as many as 80 per cent. of the population. There is, however, that fringe group of people who will be above even the extended


Assistance Board level and who will not be able readily to find the 2s., the 4s., or the 6s.
Those, I think, are the group of people to whom some more consideration may have to be given. We may find by experience, that such an element of hardship does not exist. I hope that my right hon. Friend, after the charges have run for three or four months, will make some positive inquiries through his regional medical officers, and inspectors under the Pharmacy Act, to find out from the doctors and pharmacists whether or not the shoe really is pinching. If he finds, as a result of inquiries of that kind, that this present arrangements for the payment or advancing the charges are not working satisfactorily, I hope that he will have another look at them. I want to take the argument about these charges a little further.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Has the hon. Gentleman's informant given him any idea as to the maximum any one family might be called upon to pay under the new charges? There may be several members of a family needing prescriptions. How much does the hon. Gentleman think should be the maximum sum such families should incur?

Sir H. Linstead: Anybody's guess would be as good as mine. I would not attempt to make such an estimate.
The point which I want the House to consider is one made by the hon. Member for Abertillery, when he asked, "Where is this to end"? I would prefer to put the question in another form. What about the future of the pharmaceutical service and of the drug bill? So far as I can see it, the cost of drugs will inevitably rise, not because of any original sin on the part of manufacturers but simply because new and modern drugs inevitably are more complicated to make, to test and put on the market.
We are bound to find—and my right hon. Friend must be quite conscious of this—that the drug bill, with every possible economy, will continue to rise. The Hinchliffe Committee drew attention to the fact that the increasing cost of drugs is not a British matter alone. It is to be seen in many foreign countries and under industrial conditions different from those in this country.
What can be done to prevent this steadily increasing cost of modern drugs once again putting the Health Service into jeopardy? There is no doubt that the person to whom my right hon. Friend will have to turn is the prescriber. He is, among all the welter of forces acting in this field, the person who has in his hand control over the drug bill. We have heard already from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland some of the steps that are being taken to educate the prescriber in his responsibilities. I think that the few figures I have here will illustrate that it is needed.
If one takes the cost per person of prescribing under the National Health Service in a year one finds that it varies between one part of the country and another. For example, in Wigan, it costs 53s. a year to provide drugs to a Health Service patient. In Wakefield, it is 52s., in Middlesbrough, 30s., and, in Bootle, 30s. a year. Here is a question which demands investigation. Why are there these very substantial differences between one part of the country and another? In Caernarvonshire, the figure is 55s., and in Northamptonshire, 23s.
As to the cost of each prescription, in West Hartlepool it is now 8s. on average, in West Ham it is 5s. 5d., in Cornwall it is 7s. 11d. and in Holland, Lincolnshire, it is 5s. 6d. Obviously, there is a prescribing habit among doctors in different parts of the country which may or may not be related to the illnesses in that part of the country. It may be just a habit that has grown up among the doctors there. It is possible that if the reasons for these prescribing habits could be found, and if the knowledge so gained were spread among the doctors, the high-cost areas, without any loss of efficiency to the Service, could be brought down to the level of the low-cost areas.
The Hinchliffe Report emphasised the need for training and education in prescribing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some indication of what he is doing to attack that problem and see whether he can keep the medical student, the young houseman in the hospital and the general practitioner in touch with modern prescribing methods by some other means than through the representatives of the manufacturing houses, so that they can


more competently co-operate in keeping the cost of the Service reasonable.
The Hinchliffe Committee says:
We are satisfied that there is a clement need for systematic post-graduate instruction of general practitioners in pharmacology and therapeutics. Innumerable new drugs are produced and the average doctor is unable to judge the validity of the claims made on their behalf by the manufacturers' representatives.
Here is a challenge to my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I have a constituent who is a doctor who seems to be surcharged because his prescribing expenses are greater than anyone else's in the district, but he also claims that for putting patients in hospital, which is also very expensive, his figure is the lowest of the lot.

Sir H. Linstead: No doctor is necessarily surcharged when he over-prescribes. He is invited to explain to his colleagues how it is that his prescribing is so much more generous than his neighbours'. If he can satisfy his colleagues, that is the end of the matter. The conclusion need not be so gloomy as is suggested.
In my view, it is the prescriber who holds the key to economy in this section of the Health Service. As long as the principle that the prescriber is to be free to prescribe whatever he believes his patient needs is safeguarded, his knowledge and his judgment are the main things that my right hon. Friend has to rely on. The patient can do very little to control prescribing. It is for that reason that I very much regret that he should have to pay for increased costs over which he has virtually no control at all.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: When I was listening to the Secretary of State for Scotland—who has now left the Chamber—I had the illusion, perhaps due to the all-night sitting, that I was listening to the cold clicking of an electrical computer as he did the arithmetic of these charges, rather than to the voice of a Member of this House, so devoid was his speech of the humanity one might have expected on a matter of this kind.
We are not dealing with a simple matter of arithmetic but with grievous

burdens being imposed on millions of people by the Regulations we are now discussing. Every Member, certainly every one on this side of the House, is well aware of the hardship which these Regulations will bring.
I want to give an illustration because, in doing so, I can put before the House the tragedy so many people will endure as a result of the Regulations. I had a letter from a constituent who wrote as follows:
My mother is an old-age pensioner and a chronic invalid. We look after her at home. She has a small capital besides her pension of £2 10s. per week, just enough to preclude her from receiving National Assistance benefit. She therefore has to pay her own prescription charges. She has regular prescriptions—five one week and two the next, i.e., 7s. a fortnight, plus two irregular ones. If these charges are doubled, you can see the cost involved. As she has suffered a paralysing stroke, the prescriptions are absolutely necessary.
This old lady is confined to bed, paralysed and incontinent, and suffers from bedsores. I see that the Minister of Health winces. I am sure that when he is confronted with the consequences of these Regulations, when he sees them illustrated with pain and suffering, and brought home to him in this way, when even he, who has already expressed in his juvenile poems his detestation of the old and the sick, will realise the burden—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Did not the Minister once write a poem asking for the escape of madness, but is he not now almost in it?

Mr. Edelman: I do not want to delay by talking about the Minister's poetry. I merely want to point out that, in dealing with this grave problem, he is tackling it from the wrong end.
Instead of demanding of the pharmaceutical industry that it should lower its prices, he has put the onus on the sick and has turned a blind eye to the system by which the pharmaceutical companies —this has certainly been established in America and is, I hope to show, equally well established here—get together in concert in order to keep prices high and make the vast and growing profits which occasionally appear before the public. In fact, the National Health Service has been milked by these drug companies, both British and American, as if it were some great placid cow whose object was


to nourish profits instead of to sustain the health of the nation.
I will not repeat what has been said about the remarkable rise in the cost of proprietary drugs since 1949. The cost was then £34 million and has risen, in 1961, to about £92 million. The average cost of prescriptions has risen from 3s. 1 d. in 1949 to 7s. 4d. in 1960.
From time to time the Government have very properly shown concern at this alarming and apparently irresistible rise in the cost of drugs. They first appointed the Cohen Committee, which produced the voluntary price agreement, but that did not work. However well intentioned, the voluntary price agreement was completely unsuccessful in preventing prices from rising. After that came the Hinchliffe Committee, and that was equally ineffective in holding down the prices which the pharmaceutical companies were charging.
But certain things appeared from those Reports which were enough to cause alarm to everyone concerned. One of the most sinister symptoms detected by the Hinchliffe Committee was that the average level of profits of 43 major companies whose costs were analysed by the Committee was far above the level of industrial profits throughout the country.
In addition, we have had the incursion of the American drug companies into the National Health Service scene, an incursion which was certainly not made in the interests of philanthropy but was based entirely on commercial considerations, an incursion which has yielded highly profitable results to those companies.
There are 17 American-controlled companies in this country making drugs which are available on prescription only-We have to ask ourselves whether the shareholders of those American companies are growing fat on money made from the sick and ailing in this country. I hope that the House will bear with me while I offer it certain figures which I consider of great significance.
Hon. Members will have seen on the tape that a company called the Cyanamid Company of Great Britain has decided that it is substantially to lower the prices of its products. Indeed, the announcement said that Cyanamid will reduce prices by 12 per cent. from 27th February.
This company is the manufacturer of what are known as broad spectrum antibiotics —antibiotics which have proved of the greatest value in the treatment of certain forms of infectious disease.
This announcement coming on the eve of tonight's debate is something which hon. Members might want to welcome without further analysis, but what is the history of the British subsidiary of Cyanamid? When the Health Service was introduced, the company was paying nothing to its American parent company, but in 1960 it had repatriated to America £1,400,000 profit from the National Health Service, from that captive customer.
I offer another figure to show how these American companies are milking the Health Service. In 1948, the Cyanamid Company made a trading profit of £45,000, but in 1960 that figure had risen to £3 million. In the circumstances, it is easy to see how that company can make the gesture of reducing prices by about 12 per cent.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: In order to present a fair picture, I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will want to say how much Cyanamid has spent on research in the last twelve months. I do not keep the figure in my head, but it is probably about 15 million dollars.

Mr. Edelman: I naturally defer to the hon. and gallant Member's knowledge of the British and American pharmaceutical industries because, if I am not mistaken, he has commercial connections with an American pharmaceutical company and, consequently, his testimony has a considerable value in this matter.

Mr. Robert Edwards: Does not my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) agree that that investment in research was made in America and that most American research into medicine and chemistry takes place at the universities and is financed by grants?

Mr. Edelman: I agree, and I hope to touch on that subject in a moment.
I want rapidly to give some further illustrations so that the House will be aware of the vast profits made from what the Kefauver Committee called "the fantastic profiteering" which is going on


not only in America by some American pharmaceutical companies but by their British subsidiaries here as well, profits which are made out of what I have justly called the captive customer of the Health Service.
There is another American firm, Eli Lilly & Company, owned by a parent company in Minneapolis, which has raised its net profit from £100,000 and last year increased that figure to £944,000 in this country. There is another company, with which hon. Members may be familiar, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, which in 1948 in this country made a profit of £44,000. Last year, its profit had risen to nearly £1½ million, and that profit was made out of the National Health Service. The American Parent company, Merck & Co., Inc., drew a record £800,000 from the profits made in this country.
Finally, I turn to the company which has already been mentioned—the Pfizer Company, which started in Britain as recently as 1953. Its first trading profit was £12,000, but by 1957 its profits had gone up to £1½ million. The sick, the humble, the poor, the people who are deprived, the people who are living in the conditions I mentioned in the letter from my constituent, are being asked to pay these extra shillings which are being demanded, or indeed extorted from them, in order to maintain prices which yield these fantastic profits and maintain the vast sums which are distributed to shareholders in Britain and America.
These are very serious matters, and when we are considering what has been done by the well-intentioned Cohen Committee, and the equally well-intentioned Hinchliffe Committee, what we have seen in effect is that American business men, and indeed British businesses concerned with the pharmaceutical industry, have always been one jump ahead of the well-intentioned doctors and scientists who constituted those committees. We all know that a voluntary price regulation scheme suggested by the Cohen Committee was expected to yield in three years a saving of £750,000 on an annual expenditure of £20 million, but we have had nothing like that. All we have had is a saving of £412,000 on an annual expenditure of £28 million 'between 1957 and 1960.
As to research, which is constantly thrown up in order to show what is being done by the drug companies, those engaged in research offer to society the great advantages of their knowledge, while some of the shareholders may have never seen the drugs in their lives, and the scientists, the doctors and people in the industry derive very little benefit from the drug discoveries.
I should like to turn now to one case which I raised myself in this House some time ago. Some hon. Gentlemen may recall that I spoke about a drug called Inverscine, which is extensively used in the treatment of hypertension. It is a drug of proved value, and I said in a debate some time ago that the manufacturers of that drug were obtaining from it a profit of close upon 1,000 per cent. The Minister, in the traditional debating manner when a statement of that kind is made, said something like "Prove it."At that time I had not got the information about the cost, but I now have the cost of this particular drug, which conclusively proves that the profit made by the manufacturers out of the National Health Service is something like 1,000 per cent. Since that time I am able to report that that profit has been reduced. Today it is only 500 per cent. This illustration, concerning a drug which is used for widespread disease and which is demanded by sufferers by hypertension, shows how the National Health Service is being exploited by the drug companies.
The Service requires, as its counterpart, a nationalised pharmaceutical industry. I cannot believe that ill-health should be the business of anyone. I cannot believe that it is right that the people who utilise the work of the scientists, doctors and research workers—the wonderful work which has greatly benefited mankind—should group themselves together and engage in these rings, and the sort of activity which has been so roundly condemned in America by the anti-trust laws and the Supreme Court. I cannot believe that we can tolerate those practices in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) smiles. I am sure he knows that in the United States companies supplying the Salk vaccine were indicted for forming a ring combining to keep up prices which held the Americans up to ransom. They were


indicted, and later, as the House may recall, some were condemned for their activities.
I would ask the Minister one question: would he say whether there has been a diversity of bids in respect of the supply of vaccine—Salk or otherwise—for inoculation against poliomyelitis? Will he say whether there has been competition, or whether, as I suspect, arrangements have been made by the companies concerned to make identical bids for this vast business of selling vaccines for inoculations against poliomyelitis?
I want to give one example from my own experience. At the time of the polio epidemic in Coventry a few years ago I went to France to see if I could obtain some of the excellent anti-polio vaccine manufactured by the Pasteur Institute. Officials of the French Ministry of Health agreed to send to Britain 50,000 inoculations of vaccine at a time when the polio epidemic was raging. I have no means of knowing whether the inquiries which the British Ministry of Health instituted at that time were pursued, or whether, at a subsequent stage, any attempt was made to obtain bids from the Pasteur Institute for the supply of vaccine to this country.
I think I have said enough to indicate that it is clear that the whole pharmaceutical industry is a mystery involved in an enigma. 1 endorse the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that the time is ripe for a public inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry, in order to see how the moneys of the National Health Service are being spent. Our charge against the Minister is that these prescription charges are not necessary. If the Minister were the good administrator he claims to be his first attack would be upon the drug companies, in order to bring down the profits of which I have spoken. If he did that he would easily be able to raise the revenue required to pay for the prescription costs.
One of the worst side-effects of the Regulations before the House is that they will result in increased self-medication. Once more we can say that it will be the pharmaceutical industry which will benefit from the Minister's activities—the sellers of proprietary medicines who sell

their goods for self-medication through the Press and commercial television. They will be the ones who will benefit. They will strengthen their appeal to the poor and the sick who perhaps cannot afford to pay 2s. but will not be willing to go to the National Assistance Board and who will be all the more eager to have some nostrum, advertised in the Press and on television, by which they can promptly dismiss their ills when they cannot afford a protracted course for their illness. The man in the white coat on the television screen waving magic bottles will be the huckster translated into modern terms. With their quack implementations and the mumbo-jumbo of their incantations the witch doctors of commercial television will reap a rich harvest from the seeds of injustice which the Government have sown.
In praying against these Regulations we are praying that Britain should not again be divided into the two nations of the doctored and self-medicated. I believe that we should not revert to the time when some people were too poor to enjoy good health. The purpose of the National Health Service, after all, was to ensure that health became the birthright of all. We will do everything in our power to prevent the vicious attack by the Government on what should be a sacred principle.

10.6 p.m.

The Earl of Dalkeith: In the short contribution I propose to make to this extremely interesting debate, I shall concentrate on the problem of the Is. increase in the prescription charge rather than go into the question of the merits or demerits of the principle of having prescription charges. As we know, the principle of the charge was introduced by the Labour Government in 1949, when the then Prime Minister, Lord Attlee, said that it was:
… to reduce excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
I do not think we need go further into that at the moment.
This is the first time in the course of my short period in the House—I have been here for nine months—that I have had apprehensions about action being taken by the Government. I am apprehensive about the exemptions and concessions inasmuch as they relate to


people who might suffer hardship because of these increased charges.
While I welcome the provision of safeguards to protect people against hardship in theory, I am a little uneasy about the effective methods of administering these theoretical ideas in practice. I am also a little doubtful whether they go far enough and whether they cover enough people.
As regards the greater proportion of the people who are earning reasonably good wages—in fact, very good wages in many cases—I believe that they are getting a good bargain by paying 2s. for a prescription which, on the average, is worth 8s. That is a good bargain about which I do not think anybody who can afford to pay can complain. What is more, they are today getting better drugs and better medicines which cost more.
That is just one of the many economic reasons why there is justification for keeping some of the prescription charges. I know that hon. Members on both sides agree that one cannot measure this simply in terms of £ s. d. It must be measured in terms of human compassion and human sympathy. The biggest mistake which hon. Gentlemen opposite continue to make is to think that they have a monopoly in human warmth and human sympathy. If someone is stuck in a snowdrift and a St. Bernard dog comes to the rescue, it is not much comfort to that person if the animal is breathing down the back of his neck and perhaps licking him. There has to be the brandy as well. In other words, we need the administrative ability of the Government to be able to carry out this work in a humane way. It is because of this human angle that I feel many of us are concerned about the possible effect of these charges, and we are particularly anxious about the border-line cases which are difficult to define
In the last few days I have been making searching inquiries, and I must admit they have greatly dispelled the fears which I entertained previously. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend for some assurances in respect of four categories. Can he assure us that the poorer members of the community will not be deterred from taking preventative action in the early stages of illness because of these higher charges? Secondly, can he help to explain the

provision of a refund for borderline cases of hardship, particularly in respect of elderly people who are outside the scope of National Assistance, and will he give the assurance that they be treated liberally and sympathetically by the National Assistance inspectors who will investigate their case? A great deal will depend on individual National Assistance inspectors and officers, who I know have a fine record of service.
Thirdly, I should like an assurance that if the refund procedure proves too complicated for the elderly and ill they will not go without the refund and thus become hardship cases, nor will they be allowed to go without medicine, to the detriment of their health. May I also ask for an assurance that if the exemptions turn out to be not working as we would hope and hardship results, there will be an examination of the whole system?
My fourth request for an assurance refers to the chronic sick. There are a great many perishable drugs and medicines which cannot be prescribed in large quantities. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will keep a careful watch on the cases of the chronic sick and take action as he sees fit to avoid hardship arising. The present concessions, though generous, may not be sufficient.
One other category to which I wish to refer are the old people living on fixed incomes who are just outside the scope of National Assistance. These people, I submit, in the last ten or fifteen years, in relation to the rest of the population, have been getting gradually poorer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Since the Tories came in."] I said, in relation to the rest of the population. In spite of recent pensions increases and the admirable efforts of the Government to restrain inflation, in relation to their neighbours their standards of living are not increasing as quickly.
Sometimes some of these people have to supplement small fixed incomes by spending their capital. Many of them are faced with the predicament that if they live another five years or so they will be all right because the money will last, but if they live longer than that they will have to apply for National Assistance. I am anxious that as a result of having to pay a higher charge, if they are not already covered by the


present scheme of refunds, this may hasten they day when they are forced into claiming National Assistance. That would cause a great deal of unhappiness and the nation would derive no benefit as a result. I particularly ask my right hon. Friend to keep the case of these people in mind.
I know that my right hon. Friend has already said that he will look out for any cases brought to his attention. I agree that it is still too soon to see whether these hardship cases will actually turn out to be such cases as we fear they may be. This is an important group in our community and we must recognise it. Because very often they are decent independent-minded people who have always believed that they should look after themselves, they are practically allergic to claiming anything in the way of refunds if they feel that by so doing they would be begging. One of the greatest disservices one can do is to discourage people from claiming what they can justly claim by encouraging them to believe that they would be begging.
It is a pity that there are many people —I have met some myself—who will not claim National Assistance out of a sense of pride. That is something we must recognise. At the same time we should bear in mind whether it is a good or a bad thing that we should be encouraging people perhaps to adopt a begging attitude as a result of asking them to claim back these various charges. I confess it is very difficult to find another practical way of deciding who should and who should not pay these charges. The purpose of this discussion has been whether the charge should be Is. or 2s. I think there is every justification for nine-tenths of the population paying the increased charge of 2s. and for there to be safeguards for those who may become cases of hardship. We should look after them and see to it that they do not become cases of hardship. We should see that we do not leave them too late.
My right hon. Friend has already made provisions which cover most of the cases I have mentioned. I ask him to give us the assurances and safeguards which I have mentioned for these particular cases which could become cases of hardship. I ask him if he can see to it that they are not only written in terms of theory, but also actively and effectively practised. Although I know

the system at present envisaged seems rather complicated, I would ask if he can review the system which has been suggested if it is proved to be necessary.
The 2s. prescription charge is part of what is the best National Health Service in the world. My right hon. Friend the Minister deserves to be most heartily congratulated on his plans for making it a more efficient and better Health Service still. if he is able to give me the assurances which I hope he can and will give me tonight, I shall have every confidence in supporting the Government in the Division Lobby.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I was interested to hear what the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) said. His apologia was not unexpected, because last week he abstained from voting in one of the Divisions in connection with the new charges. He tried to salve his conscience tonight by asking questions which the Minister cannot answer. How can the Minister know whether or not someone will go to the National Assistance Board? It is humbug to suggest that he will know.
The noble Lord's attitude is rather like the attitude of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who is the secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society. He said that he had received representations from chemists all over the country who had expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of imposing the charges. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Putney, like the noble Lord, will go into the Lobby tonight to impose these charges at the Government's behest. We want no more nonsense of that kind.

Mr. George Brown: It is humbug.

The Earl of Dalkeith: rose—

Mr. Hoy: No, I will not give way so soon.
We are discussing two Health Service Acts tonight. One applies to England and Wales. The other applies to Scotland. If the noble Lord had been present when the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke he would have received his answer, because the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government will take every precaution to let people know how they


can get the 2s. back. The Government will put handbills in the window to advise people how to do this.

The Earl of Dalkeith: The Division on which I abstained the other night concerned a different subject. A different principle was involved. I had justification for abstaining. I acted according to the dictates of my conscience.

Mr. Hoy: I said that the noble Lord abstained from voting on the new charges. I thought that I made it explicitly clear that tonight he will find a reason for going into the Lobby and voting in favour of imposing these charges. The Secretary of State for Scotland made a most miserable speech.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: He always does.

Mr. Hoy: He made another one tonight. The great division which exists between the two major political parties was exemplified when it became clear that the right hon. Gentleman, who has never had this remission and does not know what these little troubles are, was unable to appreciate what the charges can mean to certain families. The noble Lord made the same error. When he spoke of the charge increasing from ls. to 2s., he seemed to believe that there is only one item on all prescription sheets. A prescription sheet which previously cost ls. or 2s. may now well cost 8s. or 10s., because each item will cost 2s. The country should understand that. The same mistake was made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), who spoke on television a few days ago of the prescription charge rising from is. to 2s. as if that was the end of the story. He ignored the fact that the prescription sheet may now cost 8s. or 10s.
Now, drug charges. I do not accept the analysis of the secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society that because a prescription in one part of the country costs 5s. 10d. but costs 7s. 11d. in another part of the country it necessarily means that the 7s. 11d. prescription is the most expensive and unnecessarily expensive prescription. That is nonsense. He spoke of an analysis being undertaken by the Ministry of Health.
The Minister of Health knows that analyses have already been made. Making the charge for each item 2s. may save a great deal in rising charges.
Drug charges is not a new subject in the House. I was surprised when the Minister of Health intimated, when introducing the new charges, that as a kind of offset to them he would initiate an inquiry into the cost of proprietary drugs. He spoke as if that was something new. If anyone knows anything about the subject, it is the right hon. Gentleman, because he and I were members of the Public Accounts Committee. He knows that this was inquired into many years ago.
Let me remind the House of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for as far back as 1953. The Committee reported that 'argent inquiries were being adopted, and as a result of our inquiries in that year we reported that the Public Accounts Committee felt bound to express regret at the long delay in dealing with this subject. They were disappointed that negotiations had so far been concluded for only two out of 8,000 proprietaries. That was the Report, unanimously approved by the Public Accounts Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member —and that was seven or eight years ago.
It is also interesting to recall that the right hon. Gentleman himself put a Parliamentary Question to the Department about the cost of these things. He wanted to know the value of these prescriptions, and he was told by what is now his own Department that 10 per cent. of the prescriptions had no therapeutic value at all. That was the reply he got, so we do not need him to tell us, seven years later, that this is something that should be inquired into. In addition, his Ministry was saying that investigations were still proceeding.
When I interjected in the debate yesterday I mentioned certain figures that had been reduced in 1957. I have to correct that, and say that it was 1955. I am not impressed by the firm that today has announced a decrease in its charge for proprietary medicines, because in 1955 the Comptroller and Auditor-General reported, and it was confirmed by the Ministry, that the Ministry had approached only three


firms that were supplying these proprietaries to the Health Service. As soon as those firms were told that it was thought that they were charging too much, they reduced their charges to such an extent that, as was stated in the Public Accounts Committee Report for 1955, a saving of no less than £850,000 a year was effected. It is equally obvious that had that approach not been made, those firms would have gone on wrenching money out of the Service.
I am not, therefore, impressed when this firm—in view of the challenges made against it, and knowing full well that this discussion is now taking place —now announces a reduction of 12 per cent. in its charges. If that action does anything, it proves the suspicion of the Public Accounts Committee that it was high time there was a real, high-powered inquiry into the way in which the Service was being robbed by these firms.
The right hon. Gentleman knows it to be perfectly true that we have always had the greatest difficulty of getting information from some of these firms. 1 defy any hon. Member, on either side of the House, who has served on the Public Accounts Committee to deny that there is always the greatest difficulty in getting information from them. I have come to the conclusion that that is because they have something to hide. It is as a result of all this sort of thing that so much expense is incurred.
Instead of the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland imposing these increased charges on a section of the community least able to bear them, they would be far better employed in inquiring into the extortionate profits of these firms. If that had been done, it would not have been necessary to impose these increases on the old-age pensioners, the sick and the disabled, and it would have saved themselves and the noble Lord the embarrassment of going into the Lobby tonight.
I have never believed anything other than that people cannot buy health in that sense. Health is one of the greatest assets that we have. If the Health Service has done nothing else, it has provided many people with good health that they otherwise would not have enjoyed. As a consequence, they have been able to make their contribution to the national

economy. Do not let us forget that contribution. That should go on the credit side of the balance sheet when the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister are so busy making these little entries on the debit side about prescription charges. They should remember what the Health Service has achieved. If we have never had it so good, surely the nation should be able to afford the very best Health Service for every man. woman and child in the community.
I believe these Regulations to be an attack on that Service. The right hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him do not believe in a National Health Service. I do not believe that they regard the social services in the same light as we do. We believe that they are an essential part of a decent and humane society, and it is because we believe that that we shall go into the Lobby tonight against there impositions.

10.32 p m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I wish to declare that I have a direct interest in the pharmaceutical industry, because I am on the board of the British subsidiary of an American firm. Because I am in that position, I know the facts.

Mr. William Ross: Which one?

Sir T. Beamish: I know all the facts. I am sorry that I have only two or three minutes in which to speak. Anyone who knows the first thing about industry is aware that it is absurd to relate profit to nominal capital. Yet that is what even the Comptroller and Auditor General did.

Mr. Hoy: No, he did not.

Sir T. Beamish: Yes, he did. The hon. Gentleman should look it up.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for a debate in this House to be used as a means of putting before Parliament information that ought to be put before the Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member has said nothing that is out of order.

Sir T. Beamish: Furthermore —

Mr. Harold Davies: (Leek)rose—

Sir T. Beamish: No, I cannot give way now.

Mr. Davies: But this is of the essence—

Sir T. Beamish: If people wish to be fair to a firm whose profits they are criticising they should take into account the research that is carried out by that firm.
I did not wish to rise to defend American firms that have been attacked: my speech was intended to be quite different, but it is a fact that in America last year more than 150 million dollars—the figure is from memory; in fact, it is more than that amount—was spent on research. That is a fact which nobody on the opposite benches has mentioned, because they did not wish to be fair. I believe that the American pharmaceutical companies have invested in this country more than they have so far taken out.

Mr. William Hamilton: Rubbish.

Sir T. Beamish: It is not rubbish. I have looked at some figures and I shall be glad to show them to the hon. Gentleman.
It is perfectly true that the drug bill has gone up year by year, and it will continue to rise, but if one wishes to be fair one should mention that it has borne a constant relationship to the total cost of the National Health Service—between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. every year in the last ten years. That is a fact.
Throughout the last ten years, furthermore, the cost of the pharmaceutical services has remained constant at between 0·38 per cent. and 0·40 per cent. of the national income.
That has not been mentioned by any hon. Member opposite, nor has anyone opposite mentioned that the Board of Trade wholesale price index for pharmaceutical preparations rose by only 1.4 per cent. in the five years 1954–59, whereas during the same five years the index rose by eight times as much for all manufactured products. That is something of which the industry ought to be proud, not something for which it should be abused. If the cost of prescribed drugs were really excessive in this country per head of the population, it would be high here in comparison with other countries. So far as I can ascertain from considerable research, it may be the lowest in the world, and it is certainly one of the lowest.
I have promised to sit down at twenty-five minutes to eleven, in little more than ten seconds from now. I am sorry that I have no time to give the House more of the facts. It is very unfair to present such a partial and fictional picture as hon. Members opposite have done. I believe that, on the whole, the pharmaceutical industry has done a very fine job for this country which, translated into terms of human happiness and the improvement of health, is impossible to assess. It is a great pity that we should have to listen to this worn-out old gramophone record being played over month after month by the Opposition.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Even if the House were to accept every word of what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has said—and it certainly does not—even though it could be convinced that there is no drug company in this country or no drug company supplying drugs to the National Health Service which is making a profit which would be regarded by any hon. Member as excessive, it would still he no argument whatever for increasing the prescription charges to the sick. I pinched myself several times during the debate this evening, because I could see hon. Members being lulled into the belief that the drug bill had reached a certain figure and it could not go beyond that, and therefore, if we could not take the money out of the drug firms, we had to take it out of the patients. Surely, the Minister will not claim that that is the position.
I want to make abundantly clear that we believe that not only should the prescription not be doubled but that it should be removed altogether forthwith. We believe that the Regulations before us will bring death in their wake. We believe that fellow citizens of ours will die as a direct consequence of the House passing these Regulations. We all know that one of the results will be that the chronic sick, now rendered curable by some of the new drugs, will remain in their conditions of chronic illness because they will not go to the doctor, because they will not take advantage of the Health Service. We know that persons who might otherwise be relieved of suffering will not be relieved because they will not go to the doctor.

Mr. Frederic Harris: How does the hon. Member know that?

Mr. Fraser: We have been told by innumerable independent committees. We have been told it by the B.M.A. and by articles in the Lancet. We have been told even by the Hinchliffe Committee. We have been told it by the hon. MemPutney (Sir H. Linstead) during the debate today. These things happen to be true, and if it is the fact that some of our fellow citizens are going to die as a direct consequence of passing these

Regulations, then surely we have a right to pause and consider whether we should pass them.
A lot has been said about the drug firms. I have just spoken about the drug firms not being allowed to influence whether or not we should impose the prescription charge. In all the debates that we have had about what has sometimes been described by my hon. Friends as the drug racket it has always been asserted by hon. Members opposite that there was no room at all for reductions. It is the Left in politics in this country that has carried out this campaign.

Sir T. Beamish: Who said that?

Mr. Fraser: I am saying it now.
A week last Sunday, Reynolds newspaper called attention to the firm of Cyanamid, pointing out that its profits had soared by more than £2 million in the last four years and demanding that there should be a reduction in the very heavy price which the Health Service would have to pay for the products of this very prosperous firm. Of course, nobody on the benches opposite would have admitted that the firm could make any reduction, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) intimated, even while we were having our discussions this evening a report appeared on the tape stating that the firm had reduced its prices by 12 per cent. If all the drug firms were to cut their prices by 12 per cent. to should get all the money needed to produce the sum which the Minister is going to get by the imposition of these charges.
This happens to be true. It is surely desirable, therefore, that, together with discontinuing all these charges for prescriptions, the Minister should look at what is happening in the drug industry. If he has not the time to do so himself—I sure he has not— let him take note of the advice given by the Public Accounts Committee, a Select Committee of this House. Let him have an independent inquiry made into what is happening in the drug industry in this country, and let him find whether the justification offered by some of his hon. Friends for the prices exists.
It seems to us that the increasing number of our fellow citizens who will


undertake self-medication and who will refrain from going to the doctor is a terribly serious matter. They will certainly refrain from going to the doctor. I personally know some who will, not very many but some. We have had these Reports to which I have referred. People are being given great encouragement in the process of "doing it yourself" by commercial television, by some terribly expensive advertisements by drug firms, very largely paid for by the Chancellor.
This again happens to be true. I ask the Minister who is said to be a very considerate man—I do not know him personally—to have another look at this matter.

Mr. Ross: Does anyone know him personally?

Mr. Fraser: There is no reason from this experience to believe that the increase in the charges will in any case effect any reduction in the cost of the drug bill. Our experience up to now, since the charge was imposed first of all in 1952 and since it was increased to Is. per item in December, 1956, is that it did not result in the reduction of the drug bill for the nation as a whole. In each case it had the result that the drug bill went up because of the tremendous waste. Is it not a tragedy that we should be imposing unnecessary hardship upon millions of people in this country and at the same time not bringing any relief whatsoever to the Exchequer—which was the whole point of the exercise in the first place? I believe that the total cost of the drug bill was bound to rise, and to rise pretty steeply. We have all of us read of the cost of these new drugs, these antibiotics, these lifesavers.
We know that many of these newer drugs have not only relieved very great suffering but have enabled people who were chronically sick and who appeared to be totally incapacitated and unable to undertake employment for the rest of their lives to be sufficiently restored to fitness as to go back to work. It is difficult to measure the value of that to society. Let us not, therefore, look at what the drug bill was ten years ago and say we must increase the prescription charge to the patient.
The Secretary of State said that there was tonight no discussion about principle, that that was all decided in 1949. He is quite wrong. It was not all decided in 1949. The charges were first imposed in 1952. Hon. Members talked about the charge being double what it was to begin with. It is not being made double what it was to begin with. It was Is. per person; then it was Is. per item; now it is 2s. per item. The Secretary of State said that this was a brave decision.

Mr. LI. Williams: A brave and courageous decision.

Mr. Fraser: This was a brave decision, he said, because there had been an increase in the cost of the total drug bill because of the coming in of these antibiotics, these more expensive medicines. The Secretary of State seemed to think that that was a justification for putting the prescription charge of 2s. on the patient who gets a Is. 3d. cough bottle. Many of these items cost substantially less than 2s.: substantially less. The Secretary of State says this is a brave decision which throws no real burden on the chronically sick—because he had worked it all out, as though he were the Minister of Health, as though he were an expert in these figures. He worked it all out and said the average cost to the patient, the chronically sick, would be 8d. a week or so at the present time.

Mr. Maclay: There was a sample taken, and I was very careful to explain exactly what that sample was.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, he quoted this sample, and he gave that figure, that the cost of drugs to those people in the sample was 8d. a week. All these were chronically sick people. He said this would not cause them any hardship. Would it cost the Surtax payer any hardship if he carried it in taxation? What does this increase represent to the average Surtax payer?

Mr. Ross: A bagatelle.

Mr. Fraser: So small, it is hardly calculable. But the Secretary of State said that because we have the chronic sick this was a brave decision by the Government—

Mr. Ll. Williams: A brave and courageous decision.

Mr. Fraser: —in this society at this time when we have never had it so good.
He said a lot about the arrangements made by the National Assistance Board. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State, or any other Minister, should stand at the Box and say that there is no reason why a poor person, or an old-age pensioner, when going into the chemist's shop should not get a receipt or, having got a receipt, go along to the post office, or get some other member of the family to get the receipt from the chemist and go along to the post office on behalf of the old-age pensioner. Why should we impose all this loss of dignity on the older people in the community? Why should they have to say, in the chemist's shop, "I am on National Assistance. Can I have a receipt?" Why should we impose this indignity on those old people?
In the course of yesterday's debate, we once again had reference to the contribution to the Service by the insured worker, and quotations from the Beveridge Report. I should like to quote a passage from the Beveridge Report and go on to show that, on the basis of that Report, the Government can hardly justify what they did yesterday and what they are doing today. At paragraph 437, dealing with the contribution of 10d. towards the National Health Service—which, incidentally, as a result of yesterday's Bill, will become 3s. 4d. per man—the Beveridge Report said:
It is proposed accordingly that, in the contributions suggested as part of the Plan for Social Security, there shall be included a payment in virtue of which every citizen will be able to obtain whatever treatment his case requires, at home or in an institution, medical, dental or subsidiary, without a treatment charge.
As I said in the debate a week ago, that was what we got for the 10d, over the years from 1911. It was not always 10d., but from 1911 we got our free prescriptions because we made a contribution to that limited Health Service in our National Health contribution. The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State—the Government, in fact—have said that the insured worker who got his prescriptions free from 1911 onwards because he made that contribution must now pay., not the contribution of 10d., but a contribution of 3s. 4d.
Even when the 10d. becomes 3s. 4d. over the period of only a few years—because the party opposite was the first

to step up the new insurance contribution, and it has stepped it up so steeply that in a few years the 10d. contribution has now become 3s. 4d.—the same insured worker whom the Beveridge Committee assumed would continue to receive his treatment free because that contribution was being made, has now to pay 2s. for every item on the prescription. There is no doubt that many of those in employment and paying these contributions out of low wages must still have regular medical treatment and regular prescriptions, and a good many of them have prescriptions with three or four items on them every week. Those people will not only pay another 10d. a week on their insurance contribution, but another 6s. or 8s.—or, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to be precise about it, another 3s. or 4s. a week—for the medicines they get across the chemist's counter.
Some people will certainly be put off by these charges. They will not be the wealthy people. They will not be people who are asking for tax concessions at present. They are not the people who might be entitled to have six months in the sun to do them good. They are the poor people for whom we in Parliament have a duty to stand up, the people for whom we should care. If the Conservatives really cared, they would not proceed with these Regulations. I hope very much that hon. Members opposite who have uttered criticisms of these prescription charges will have the courage of their convictions and will come into the Lobby with my hon. and right hon. Friends.

10.55 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I am sure that it would be true to say that every speech in this debate, from whatever point of view it has been uttered, has been inspired by concern for the well-being of the National Health Service. In particular there has been considerable expression of anxiety about the gross cost within the Health Service of the pharmaceutical service.
Before I come almost immediately to the Regulations themselves, I should like to say straight away that the Government do not regard these Regulations as in any sense a substitute for action to ensure that we get value for money for the gross cost of the pharmaceutical service. In ensuring that we do so, and I have taken the expression of my hon.


Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), there are two aspects both of which have to be looked at the same time. One concerns the prices of drugs, and the other the prescribing of drugs.
As for prices, the new voluntary price regulation scheme which was negotiated at the end of last year not only was in itself a substantial improvement over its predecessor but it opened the way to continuing negotiations, some of the first fruits of which have been reductions in the cost of some Cyanamid drugs which have been mentioned several times in the debate, and with that process the Government intend steadily to continue.
On the prescribing side, I entirely agree with the authoritative analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). Undoubtedly if there is a key in this matter the key lies in the hands of the prescribing doctor, and it is the duty of the Government to do all that lies in their power to help him, within his complete professional discretion, to achieve good and economical prescribing. One means is the production of the new Prescribers' Journal which is designed to attain that purpose. So by a balanced operation upon prices and upon prescribing we shall progressively, I believe, make sure that we are getting full value for the money that we spend on the pharmaceutical service.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Ministry of Aviation has a technical costs organisation which is very effective? Would he consider introducing some similar organisation in respect of the pharmaceutical service?

Mr. Powell: Certainly my Department seeks and uses expert costing advice in these matters.
In no way are the Regulations which are before the House an alternative to or substitute for the action about which I have just been speaking. The result of the Regulations will be to raise by way of increased prescription charges the sum of £11½ million in the next financial year and £12½ million in a full year. It is, I think, apposite to remind the House of what the Guillebaud Report, which has many times been quoted in our debates in these last few days, had to say about the prescription charge. The Guillebaud Committee was speaking, of

course, about the prescription charges in 1956. It said:
… we have no reason to think that the charge hinders the proper use of the Service by at least the great majority of its potential users …
I shall come in a moment to consider the position of the small minority who are, by implication, referred to in that expression, but let me for a moment take these words:
… we have no reason to think that the charge hinders the proper use of the Service by at least the great majority of its potential users …

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Report was referring to the 1s. per form prescription charge? As there are now on average 1·5 prescriptions per form, the charge is now to be three times the charge referred to by the Guillebaud Committee.

Mr. Powell: I specifically said that, and I am bound to point out that the whole of our experience since then, which includes the period of the increase of the charge to 1s. per item in 1956, bears out the conclusions of the Guillebaud Report.
In the first place, according to the best advice which is available to me, there is no evidence which tends to show that either the 1952 or the 1956 prescription charges have had any unfavourable effect upon the country's health.

Mr. Woodburn: That is a different thing.

Mr. Powell: It is a very material point. Secondly, if it is alleged that these charges have been a barrier and have prevented people obtaining the prescriptions they should have obtained, how comes it that the number of prescriptions dispensed in the year coming to a close is greater than the number dispensed in the last year before the 1956 charge, and in the last year before the 1952 change, bearing in mind the fact that undoubtedly following the 1956 charge there was, as there was intended to be, an increase in prescribing for longer periods for the chronic sick and a corresponding reduction in the number of prescriptions?
Of course, this is not a surprising experience, because this period of nine years from 1952 to 1961 has witnessed an increase in purchasing power throughout the whole community.
Whether we test it upon, for example, National Insurance benefits or upon earnings, we find that there has been an enormous increase over those years in the purchasing power of the community of something like 70 per cent. or 80 per cent., to say nothing of the increase since 1949, when Parliament first thought it right to pass the legislation under which these Regulations are being made.
I turn at once from this general picture —which no one really doubts—of a prescription charge which is no barrier to the use of the Service by the great majority—I use the Guillebaud Committee's own description—to consider the tiny minority to whom it may be a barrier. It is right that concern about that minority should have been expressed from both sides of the House, and not least from this side of the House, in the debate tonight.
How stands it with that tiny minority? They are, of course, catered for, as the House knows, in one of two ways. There are those in receipt of regular National Assistance—and I pause there for a moment to point out that the area covered by National Assistance, the scope of National Assistance, is today far greater than it was in 1952. In real terms there has been an increase of something like 40 per cent. in the value of the National Assistance standards. Those who can automatically recover the charges because they are in regular receipt of National Assistance are higher up, in a higher band of society, than was the case in 1952.
I now come to the other element of provision for the minority, which concerns those who are not in regular receipt of National Assistance. There the contribution made through the Board is dictated by two considerations. First, these payments can be made to people in employment, and the special arrangements have to take account of that fact, and, secondly, the need here being met is essentially of an occasional and not a constantly recurring nature: these are sums which fall from time to time upon the budgets of the persons or families concerned. It is on that basis that the arrangements for the assessment of their need—which I mentioned in the House last week and which I propose to mention again—are based.
In these cases, before the Board applies its scales it allows expenses in connection

with employment, such as fares to and from work, superannuation contributions and trade union subscriptions, and it also allows such items as mortgage repayments hire-purchase payments and insurance premiums and, finally, up to 40s; of net earnings is disregarded.
It will be easier for the House to grasp the scope of these arrangements—and it is a wide scope—if I put before it some concrete instances of persons or families who would qualify for the refund of prescription charges under them. I will first take examples of people who are earning and then examples of people who are retired. From 1st April a man with a wife and three dependent children, paying a rent of 10s. or more—[Interruption]—ten shillings or more; that is, paying a rent as low as 10s., and who has, apart from family allowances, net earnings as high as £8 15s. a week, after allowing for fares to work, insurances and all the other disregards and allowances which I have mentioned would be able to get his prescription charge refunded.
Let me take another example. A man with the same family would be likely to qualify, even though he earned about £10 a week net, if he had a rent of about 25s. a week and some hire-purchase commitments. Finally, a man with higher commitments still might qualify even though his earnings were higher than the figures I have given. The House will probably appreciate from those examples that there is ample scope in the second leg of the arrangements for ensuring that not even a minority is held back from getting the benefits of the National Health Service by this charge.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the Minister appreciate that last week I quoted a speech of his in which he said that these people would just not go to the National Assistance Board?

Mr. Powell: I am now taking up the challenge of what I said in 1951, because I regard arrangements such as these as amply fulfilling the conditions I had in mind when I made the speech in 1951, which was quoted by the hon. Member.
Now let me come to the example of a retired person. Let us take a pensioner drawing from 1st April the new retirement pension of 57s. 6d. Let us suppose that that person also has a superannuation payment of 35s. a week, a small


superannuation payment, but a typical instance of a pensioner who is outside the normal scope of the National Assistance Board.
In such a case, if there were a rent of about 2'4s. a week—not at all an unlikely eventuality—he would qualify for refund of prescription charges, and it is interesting to note that in such a case the income concerned approximates closely to that which attracts the age exemption for Income Tax purposes.
Not only are these arrangements wide in their scope, but the method for securing them is simple. I have here the receipt form which can be obtained at the chemist when the drug—or drugs—is purchased. All that a person in the second category about which I have been talking has to do is to fill in his name and address on the back of this form, and either take it, or post it, to the National Assistance Board, in which case the applicability of a payment will be determined by the Board.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded the House that, where cash is not available, it can be obtained in advance upon the prescription form itself.

Mr. Harold Davies: In the middle of the night?

Mr. Powell: Many hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in an earlier debate, have emphasised the importance of these arrangements being as widely known as possible. I think that the House would wish to know the arrangements which the Government propose to make to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, the availability of refund in these circumstances is known to all whom it may concern.
The detailed information which has already been sent to doctors and chemists will be revised and re-issued. As regards the general public, posters with full details will be sent to all chemists and family doctors, and they will be able to give patients or customers details of the procedure for obtaining refunds. The National Old People's Welfare Council will give the information to its 1,600 local councils in its next bulletin. The local managers of the National Assistance Board will make it

their duty to communicate these arrangements not only to the local old peoples' organisations, but to all the many local organisations with whom they are in contact as part of their duty. Finally, the National Assistance Board is already in touch with the Citizens' Advice Bureau with a view to circulating to all its branches details of how to obtain this refund.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: This does not meet the argument about the chronic sick who are above those levels which I do not consider are levels of anything more than poorness itself. I put a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Why cannot a certificate be issued to a person who is chronically sick which will exempt him from all charges?

Mrs. Braddock: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned refunds. Does that mean that a person has to pay for the prescription before there is any possibility of getting a refund?

Mr. Powell: As I have already explained, where the cash is not available it can be obtained in advance upon the prescription form; that is, not waiting for the receipt from the chemist, but on the prescription form.
Coming to the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), the difficulty about that kind of exemption is the extreme one of finding a definition of the term "chronic sick" which would be both appropriate and fair as between one person and another. The Government believe that this is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the family doctor, knowing the circumstances, so that he can decide the maximum period for which to prescribe—and he is encouraged to do so.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: rose—

Mr. Powell: I am sorry, but I must get on. I promise that I will correspond with the hon. Gentleman on the subject. My mind is quite open to any practical improvements which it may be thought can be made.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Cheaper to leave things as they are.

Mr. Powell: Over and above all that I have told the House about these exemptions, there is the pledge of my predecessor, which the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have repeated, to


examine specific cases where hardship may arise, and, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, I feel that the implementation of our pledge will best ensure that, as time goes on, the working of these arrangements would be constantly under review.
I have not mentioned, but I should mention, that where war disability is concerned, there is no question but that the charges will be automatically refunded. That is the position where the charge relates to war disability.
With such safeguards which have already under the past arrangements resulted in refunds being available to the extent of 8 or 9 pea. cent. of the total of prescription charges, and with the experience of the working of the prescription charges system over the last ten years, and with the background of increasing prosperity and well-being during those ten years, it would be hard indeed to assert that it is more important to keep the charge at a shilling than to apply the £12 million or £13 million which this new charge will yield to some other part of the National Health Service.
In the coming year, the gross cost—that is, the real cost, the full cost—of the Service will rise by £79 million, from £807 million to £886 million. Of that increase of £79 million, some £50 million has been made possible by the measures which we have been debating in these recent days, and of which this £12 million or £13 million is an integral part. That is the decision which the House is taking tonight namely, whether it wishes to apply £12 million or £13 million in this way.
I think that the House should be reminded of the general view of the charges and their place in the service which was taken by the Guillebaud Committee.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Read the minority report as well.

Mr. Powell: I am quoting from paragraph 571.
We do not believe that the country will be in a position to provide a fully comprehensive health service, which is adequate for all desirable needs, in the foreseeable future. The Government's problem is how to make the best possible use of the available resources and to decide which are the most urgent priorities to be met as and when more resources become available. The question of the priority to be given to the reduction of charges must, therefore, depend on the relative importance

attached to other outstanding needs in the Health Service as a whole, as well as on the financial resources at the disposal of the Government for all purposes ".
That statement of the Guillebaud Committee, which is really self-evident, and the issue which I have put before the House tonight, that we are deciding whether it is better to keep the prescription charge as it is at present or to spend another £12½ million upon the development of the Service, is no new discovery.

Mr. Lipton: That is not the real choice.

Mr. Powell: I will convince the hon. Gentleman that it is the real choice before I conclude. Let me quote the following words:
It was absolutely necessary to obtain money from charges upon some other parts of the Health Service so that we could maintain the essentials. The charges that we now propose are estimated to yield us £13 million in this year. With the aid of that revenue we plan to spend £15 million more on hospitals this year than was estimated for last year… Thus, in the next financial year we shall, despite the ceiling of £400 million, have £12 million more available to meet essential needs … than we have this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 238.]
That was said by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). Let there be no misunderstanding. It is this question of priorities which the House is deciding tonight.
Here is another quotation:
Let us look at the actual facts. It is not the National Health Service that would be making a charge to the patient. It is the National Health Service that would be saying to the patient: ' Where a doctor has given you a prescription that costs more than a shilling, the National Health Service will pay the cost above a shilling, but up to the shilling you will pay.' We could quite as easily restrict the new service in another direction." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2261.]
That was said by the late Aneurin Bevan in 1949.

Miss Jennie Lee: (Cannock)rose—

Mr. Powell: I will give the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) an opportunity to intervene later.
I was going to refer to the speech which the hon. Lady made last week, which was heard, if I may respectfully say so, with the attention which she always commands. She touched the House by a description of a personal


experience which emphasised the continuing deficiencies, gaps and lacks in an important part of the National Health Service. I want to ask the hon. Lady a question in a moment. She said in her speech:
… we might at this moment have the pleasure of perfecting our Health Service. Instead, we are engaged in this squalid debate about raising prescription charges from Is. to 2s…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 480.]
I should like to ask the hon. Lady which she considers to be more important—to keep the prescription charge at its present level or to have f12 million or £13 million additional available for applying, for example, to the part of the National Health Service where she drew attention to the deficiency.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Minister is putting an entirely false point, and it is an insult to the productive capacity and common sense of this country to say that we have not the resources to meet both those needs. May I also ask him to consult the appendix to "In Place of Fear," where he will discover what he must already know, that, even before the Labour Government left office, in the Ministry of Health plans were being made to deal with profits in the pharmaceutical section and others that had been ten years wasted. The fact that one or two of my hon. Friends on this side of the House had not an entirely clear vision is no justification for the right hon. Gentleman's total blindness.

Mr. Powell: I knew that the hon. Lady would take one or other of the escape routes which hon. Members opposite throughout these debates have allowed themselves, because they are not carrying responsibility. The two escape routes are, first, to say that there would not be this dilemma if the national income were larger.

Miss Lee: The Minister has misunderstood me. I believe that with wiser Government the national income could have been larger; but, taking the national income as it has been in the last ten years, I think it is quite disgraceful that a higher priority should not be given to the subjects we are discussing.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady went out through the other door, not the one I

supposed. The other door is to say that it is quite easy, because we could allocate more from general revenue.

Miss Lee: Yes,

Mr. Powell: Yes—one or other of those escape routes has been provided for themselves by hon. Members to escape from what is the real dilemma and the real choice before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well. I will make the utmost concession which mile one wishes to ask from me. I will assume any increase which hon. Members please in the national income in the present year—[AN HON. MEMBER' "What about next year?"]—or next year, if hon. Members like it. I will assume also that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed me for my Estimates this year any demand which I care to make out of tax revenue. So strong is the force of the argument that the dilemma still confronts the House. Am I to keep the charges at their present level—?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Powell: We have it at last. Hon. Members opposite believe that it is more important to keep the present level of charges which are not withholding the benefits of the Service from anyone rather than have another £12 million or £13 million for expenditure on essential purposes.
The Opposition have never realised that neither the National Health Service nor the society in which it exists stands still. They are both living, changing things reaching out to new aims as people are able to meet old needs for themselves.
A remarkable contribution, though a brief one, was made to our debates earlier last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. I. Fraser). He set out to perfection, I thought, the true difference—and there is, of course, a fundamental difference here—between the two sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Yes, there is indeed. My hon. Friend said that
there is no ideal pattern for the National Health Service laid up in heaven …
We have got to find a pattern for the National Health Service which will not only suit it but which will work. It has to suit the dynamic and increasingly prosperous society at all levels. Why I am poles apart from hon. Members opposite is that I do not


believe that their ideal pattern for the Health Service would either suit or work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1961: Vol. 634, c. 737.]
When, in a moment or two, the House divides, the Division will be between a party for which time stood still in 1951, a party which is still looking back to the society that the rest of the country has left behind and in the other Lobby a party which is looking forward to a

continuing development of the National Health Service as of the other social services and which is confident that it will receive the understanding and support of the nation in fulfilling its duties.

Quesion put:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 285.

Division No. 57.
AYES
11.30. p.m


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will



Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)



Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Paget, R. T.


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Pargiter, G. A.


Beaney, Alan
Holt, Arthur
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hoy, James H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peart, Frederick


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowies. Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Prentice, R. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (westhoughton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George
Randall, Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Callaghan, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Reid, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reynolds, G. W.


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Collick, Percy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Ross, William


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Shepherd, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Short, Edward


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, Arthur


Deer, George
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, L. M. (Ardwlck)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefieid)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Snow, Julian


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Donnelly, Desmond
McCann, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Edelman, Maurice
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Stones, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke.on-Trent.C.)


Finch, Harold
Malialieu. J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Eric
mama, Charles
Sylvester, George


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Richard
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mellish, R.J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Cirm'rth'n)
Millan, Bruce
Timmons, John


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward J.
Tomney, Frank


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchlson, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wade, Donald


Gourley, Harry
Moody, A. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Warhey, William


Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hannan, William

Willey, Frederick




Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Winterbottom, R. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Howell and Mr. Cronin.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Aitken, W. T.
Freeth, Denzil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gammons, Lady
McAdden, Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Barber, Anthony
George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaren, Martin


Barter, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Berkeley, Humphry
Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Bishop, F. P.
Green, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Black, Sir Cyril
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maddan, Martin


Bossom, Clive
Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Sir John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Box, Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brewis, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton


Brooman-White, R.
Hay, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Heald, fit. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bryan, Paul
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Morrison, John


Bullard, Denys
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hendry, Forbes
Nabarro, Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Neave, Airey


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Michael


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Chataway, Christopher
Hobson, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hollingworth, John
Partridge, E.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cole, Norman
Hopkins, Alan
Peel, John


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Percival, Ian


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peyton, John


Cordle, John
Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Costain, A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, I. J.


Coulson, J. M.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitt, Miss Edith


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hurd, Sir Anthony
pott, Percivall


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, F. P.
Jackson, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, J. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dance, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ramsden, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawilnson, Peter


Deedes, W. F.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees, Hugh


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Geoffrey


du Cann, Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lagden, Godfrey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, John
Lambton, Viscount
Roots, William


Elliot. Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Emery, Peter
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, Ronald


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Shaw, M.


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Fisher, Nigel
Longbottom, Charles
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.








Smithers, Peter
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Webster, David


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Speir, Rupert
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, William


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Stevens, Geoffrey
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Turner, Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Stodart, J. A.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Storey, Sir Samuel
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wise, A. R.


Studholme, Sir Henry
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Woodnutt, Mark


Tapsell, Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woollam, John


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)



Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Teeling, William
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Temple, John M.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Watts, James

EDUCATION (HARRY PIPER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: Harry Piper is a nine-year-old boy with an almost insatiable appetite for knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge. About a year ago, it became quite apparent to his parents that Harry's hunger for intellectual activity was by no means being satisfied by the local primary day school which he was attending. Accepting the best educational advice they could obtain, Harry's parents took Harry to a well-qualified consultant psychologist.
I have a copy of that psychologist's report. Harry was tested with a revised Stanford-Benit scale of intelligence test and was found to have an intelligence quotient of 171. At the physical age of 9 years, his mental age, according to the tests he passed, was found to be 15½.
The tests showed that he had an enormous vocabulary for his age and excellent powers of deduction, reasoning and association. According to the report, his reasoning ability was particularly in evidence when dealing with items which had a mathematical basis. Nevertheless, last March, just after his ninth birthday, when the test was made, it was becoming apparent that Harry Piper's intellectual potential was already becoming something of a burden to him. It is by no means an unmixed blessing to have an exceptionally brainy child, as Mr. and Mrs. Piper have found to their cost. Indeed, it carries a heavy responsibility if the child is to grow up with his special gifts properly and adequately developed.
Perhaps I should underline at this point that, in my view, the danger of

leaving such a child to stagnate in a class of children of his own physical age is not just the negative one of failing properly to develop those special gifts, but the more serious, more positive danger of producing a delinquent out of the boredom and frustrations of a sensitive mind fertilised, when he is older, by a feeling that perhaps society has let him down.
Undoubtedly, throughout his childhood and adolescence, Harry will be at different levels of mental, physical and emotional development. Obviously, therefore, he will require more individual attention, guidance and tuition than would a boy of more average ability. This sort of personalised attention is not, of course, humanly or physically possible in a class of 30 or 40 pupils at an ordinary primary or secondary school. It is possible at Millfield School owing to the high teacher-pupil ratio. Unfortunately for people of ordinary means, a privately-financed school with a high teacher-pupil ratio must inevitably charge substantial fees.
Mr. Piper took the only course open to him within the framework of our educational system and, last July, applied to the Middlesex County Council Education Committee for a grant. I say that he took the only course open to him because in fact the only provision made for exceptionally brilliant children is a permissive regulation that allows a local education authority to make a grant in exceptional cases out of its normal revenue for educational purposes. I shall return to what I regard as the inadequacy of this provision in a few moments.
To return to the sequence of events which led me to the conclusion that the case of Harry Piper was a fit and proper


subject to raise on the Adjournment of the House, on 25th July the local education authority turned down flat Mr. Piper's request for assistance. Informed of this, the headmaster of Millfield School, who had earlier satisfied himself of Harry's intellectual capacity, decided that it would not be in the boy's interest to delay his admission to Edgarley, the preparatory school for Millfield, pending further attempts by Mr. Piper to obtain financial help towards the school fees.
Harry was, therefore, admitted at the beginning of the scholastic year last September, without fees and at a purely nominal charge for small "extras" of 30s. a week from his parents. In addition to the 30s. a week, Mr. Piper is, of course, facing the repayment of a bank loan he had to obtain to buy the necessary uniform and equipment for Harry to start at Millfield. Nevertheless, due to the public-spirited action of the headmaster of Millfield, Harry is receiving the best possible tuition at no cost to his parents for that tuition.
But the willingness of Millfield's headmaster, Mr. Meyer, to shoulder for a time the burden of providing Harry with the education he needs in no way absolves the local education authority or the Ministry from their responsibility. Consequently Mr. Piper wrote to the Ministry on 2nd October. On 10th November he had a reply, supplemented by a further letter on 29th November. In these letters Mr. Piper was invited to arrange for Harry to be seen by the county educational psychologist. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education will note that this invitation for Harry to be seen by the local authority's psychologist came nearly four months after Mr. Piper's application for a grant had been turned down.
As my hon Friend knows, I also took up with him the matter of an educational grant for Harry at the beginning of November, and in his reply to me my bon. Friend reinforced the advice sent direct by his Ministry to Mr. Piper. Harry, therefore, went along to see the county educational psychologist on 3rd January. The psychologist reported that whilst the boy was undoubtedly of high intellectual calibre he was of the opinion

that a suitable education could be provided in Middlesex county primary schools.
I am aware, as I am sure we all are, that children in Middlesex are among the brightest in the country, and it naturally follows that the pace in Middlesex schools is faster than the average over the country as a whole. But these schools cannot provide the flexibility of personal attention that is needed by a boy of Harry's mental capacities. To achieve a full development of his faculties Harry needs to proceed at a different pace in different subjects. With that proviso, it is, of course, highly desirable that his education should cover a wide range of subjects. It is not enough these days for a scientist to have a high degree of technical knowledge and skill if he cannot also communicate his conclusions—not only to fellow scientists and others in his own country but also to those of other countries as well.
Furthermore, the difference between a run-of-the-mill scientist and a top-ranking one often rests on the single factor of the development of the imagination based on broad general educational foundations. This is what Millfield offers Harry Piper. In some subjects he is following the normal preparatory school curriculum. In others—in mathematics for example—he is taking an accelerated course, and in biology he is attending the senior sixth form discussion group. The prospect for him is that he will probably take A-level zoology and botany at 13 or 14 years of age; A-level physics and chemistry at 14 to 15, and a very wide range of 0-levels, including probably half-a-dozen languages, between the ages of 13 and 17. I should be surprised—though, of course, delighted—to learn that Middlesex primary schools could offer these sort of educational facilities.
I said earlier that the only provision in the State educational framework for developing exceptionally gifted children is a permissive regulation which allows a local education authority to make a grant out of its own funds. It may well be that (the real reason for the refusal of Middlesex to allow Harry a grant was simply that it has more urgent priorities for money available for education purposes. If that is so, there can be no criticism levelled at it for refusing a grunt.
However, in view of the urgent need of the country now and in the future for first class scientists, can we really rely on such a passive, permissive provision to meet the special needs of the raw material in its earlier states of development?
Middlesex is a progressive authority in the use it makes of permissive regulations. It has a praiseworthy scheme of awards for really bright, older children to attend the country's leading public schools—this scheme includes Harrow but not Eton. But even with the most progressive authorities, the present provision has its limitations. It is at least as important to develop properly the minds of the educationally super-normal as it is to develop the minds of the educationally subnormal.
Yet, for backward children we provide over 300 special schools, offering over 30,000 places, among them, boarding schools. Could we not also provide at least one boarding school to provide places for children of exceptional ability whose parents are of limited means? I say one school because I do not know the size of the problem over the country as a whole. But I have had letters from some of my hon. Friends giving examples of cases they know.
This is information that I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give me—without trying to tone it down—when he replies. There may well be a need for a number of such schools.
If demand would not justify even one, why not make provision in the general grant for help to exceptional children? The Minister has a precedent in the provision in the general grant for local authorities to expand the facilities for the educationally subnormal over the next two years. Clearly, if provision could be made in the general grant to reimburse local authorities which give financial assistance to children of high intellectual calibre, then they would be less inhibited about making such contributions.
There is an immense need for us to find, to develop, and to give the best possible education to our brightest children. At present I am far from satisfied that our efforts to do this are more than half-hearted nibbles at the

biscuit. I am convinced that they are totally inadequate.
I hope most sincerely that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend will really look at this problem, not only to ensure that, when application for help is made on behalf of a child of high intellectual calibre, it will be available, but also to evolve some system of finding the many hundreds of exceptionally gifted children whose parents, either through lack of knowledge or lack of understanding, do not have an assessment made of their children's intellectual ability.
Action taken to improve the position for future Harry Pipers will not materially help him. As I understand the situation, Harry can be helped in the immediate future only if the Middlesex County Council can find it in its heart—perhaps I should say, in its purse—to reverse its two earlier decisions. I ask my hon. Friend to use his influence with the authority to persuade it to reconsider the problem.
It may be that a large industrial company would be prepared to invest in Harry's education. It may be that there is provision for this sort of educational expenditure in some of the newer foundations, such as the Nuffield Foundation and the Isaac Wolfson Foundation. If any such organisations are interested I should like to hear from them. Nevertheless, whatever can or cannot be done to help Harry Piper this year, we must ensure that the sacrifice of his family and the generous public spirited action of his new headmaster, Mr. Meyer, shall not be in vain. We can do this by setting ourselves the task, now, of seeking to improve the facilities available for the Harry Pipers of the future.
I urge my hon. Friend to have a searching inquiry made into all the ramifications of the problem of ensuring that the country can make the best use of its finest intellects. So may the case of Harry Piper save some potential village Hampden, and not only village Hampden, from the stagnant pools of ineffable frustration.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland) for bringing forward this case. I can assure him that Middlesex County Council is not the only council which


produces these children of extreme brilliance. I have had some experience of them in my constituency in Cornwall, where we have had the same difficulty of getting the local education authority to advance some form of grant for children who go to a school like Millfield.
I want to make three short points. First, it is an established practice of Millfield School to give I.Q. scholarships. That is a praiseworthy venture by the headmaster, and it is worthy of support on a wider scale than it is getting at the moment.
Secondly, there is provision in the general grant for special aid to subnormal children—in respect of whom there is a vast problem—and this is particularly relevant to my part of Cornwall. If we can give a special grant for subnormal children, will my hon. Friend admit the logic of saying that, at the other end, a special grant should be given to children of exceeding brilliance? If we could do that I would not go with my hon. Friend as far as to say that we want special State schools for children of exceeding brilliance, because I think that that would create a very difficult position.
Thirdly, we need a special provision whereby children with an exceptionally high I.Q. and promise can get ahead at their own pace without being held back —as they have to be, through no fault of anybody—in the ordinarily educational framework at the moment. If they were given a special grant so that they could go at their own pace it would be of benefit not only to them but to their country, because they will surely pay our country dividends if we can support them in their early stages of development. I ask the Minister particularly to heed what my hon. Friend has said, and to see if he can find some method whereby these brilliant children—who will have a hard time anyhow—can be helped in the first stages of their careers.

11.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland) for bringing this subject forward, since it raises one or two matters of considerable and widespread import-

ance. In this case I am sure that the consideration which must dominate our minds is the well-being of the little boy. We are not concerned primarily to pass judgment on a local education authority, to decide the relative worth of two varying assessments of the boy by eminent psychologists, or to lay praise or blame on the teachers or the parents. These matters are important in evaluating the events which led up to the story my hon. Friend put before the House, but they are incidental to our main purpose which is to achieve for one small boy the best arrangements for his future educational career.
I do not dispute the facts recounted by my hon. Friend. Neither I nor those who have considered the case have questioned the view that here is a child of exceptional ability with every chance of making a career of distinction for himself if his talents are guided and developed along the right lines and if the human personality embodied in this small frame grows and matures satisfactorily.
What we have to consider is, has his future been prejudiced by the events of the past year, have the decisions made for his education been right and wise, and is there anything that we can do now which will help to ensure his future well-being?
When the father, realising that his son was in some ways exceptional, made his first enquiries about the intentions of the junior school and the education authority for the boy, he seems to have decided that the ordinary processes of a primary school were not suitable. I sympathise with the father in wanting the best teaching arrangements he could get. But as my hon. Friend has observed, it is also the heavy responsibility of parents of this kind of child not to neglect his emotional and social needs.
It is by no means certain that segregation by attainment is necessarily right for such young children, taking into account their general needs at that age. Not all of us have to face the problem of what to do for a son who is abler than average. Most of us, I think, having recovered from our surprise at such a situation, would seek the best advice we could get, as the father did in this case. He sought and acted on the advice of an independent educational psychologist. He took the boy


away from his primary school and accepted the offer of a place at a fee-paying public boarding school. He was, of course, perfectly free to do this. I do not propose to comment on the school that the father chose. Neither the father's actions nor his motives are on trial here this evening.
It is what follows, however, that brings us into the field of disputation. The father then sought aid from public funds towards the cost of his son's education at this school. Our system would be deficient in an important respect if it did not make provision for such an application in suitable cases. It does make provision. After consulting the primary school headmaster and the Acton Borough Education Officer, the father applied to the Middlesex Education Department for a grant. I must remind the House that local education authorities are free to decide these questions in the light of the best advice they can get in each case. My right hon. Friend would intervene, if at all, only if an authority acted with extreme irresponsibility.
I must say at once that I see no evidence of that here. The father's application was considered by the authority which had before it a report on the boy, submitted by his primary school headmaster. The committee declined to make a grant. Let me remind the House what it was that the committee had to consider. It was an application for grant towards the fees of a boarding school education for a boy then aged 9. It was not said, and is not said now, that the primary school, as a primary school, was in any way deficient.
The best advice I have is that Derwentwater Primary School has a good headmaster and is developing into a good school and would be able to cope with this boy's needs. The committee was not asked to consider alternative educational arrangements for the boy. It was not invited to consider whether the boy's new school was the most suitable one for his future education. It was a straightforward application for a grant. As I understand it, the grounds for the application were that the boy was of exceptional ability, was not provided at the primary school with facilities and teaching appropriate to his gifts, and was denied the company of his intellectual peers.
This boy is gifted beyond the ordinary. His I.Q. is said to be somewhere between

138 and 171, which places him in the top 2 to 5 per cent. of his age group. But he is by no means alone in his distinction. There may be as many as 25,000 children in England and Wales in this bracket in each age group. We should take some satisfaction in this fact. This boy is going to face some considerable competition from others no less gifted than himself as he goes through life. I am sure that it cannot be right for this boy to be encouraged to think that as well as being able he is in some other way different from, and apart from, his contemporaries. He has to learn to live with them.

Mr. Holland: Does not my hon. Friend think that the boy will feel very different from other boys moving at a slow pace—that he will feel "out of things"?

Mr. Thompson: I am coming to that point. Certainly it would be wrong for such children to be led to believe that intellectual gifts are, in themselves, sufficient equipment with which to face the demands of life. Equally, it would be wrong to embark on a course which led parents of such children to suppose that they could automatically reimburse themselves from public funds for the fees of the boarding school of their own choice. There must be present some factors which make this case different from so many others but I must say that I cannot discern any such factors here.
I am sustained in this view by the opinion of the County Educational Psychologist who examined the boy last month. He places the boy among the top 5 per cent. of the population intellectually with an intelligence quotient of 138. He says there are many as able as this boy who cope adequately in primary schools. I know that this is so. There are probably a thousand such Middlesex children in each age group for whom this is true. I must, therefore, absolve the Middlesex authority of any charge of having acted unreasonably in this case. It is not unusual for them to have to deal with this kind of application, and the fact is that in this case they felt they had enough information on which to base their decision.
Their willingness to take this matter very seriously is demonstrated by the fact that on appeal they offered to the boy an examination by their educational


psychologist. There remains, however, the all important question of what is to happen to this boy in the future. It would be sad indeed if his talents were to be wasted, but it would be even more serious if all such as he could find no place or consideration in our educational system.
But there are grave doubts about the wisdom of boarding school education for children of primary school age. It is widely held that a child, whether he is very bright or not, has much to gain in his earlier years from the environment of a good home, from the care and affection of his own parents, and from the interplay of all the factors of which normal, robust family life is composed. Unless the home is deficient in some of these particulars, it can do just as much for a child as can any school. After all, education is not just a matter of books and laboratories, and tests. Education is not just for learning; it is for living. A child might miss something for the lack of his intellectual peers—he may owe even more to the social frictions of a company of his own emotional kind.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should provide special schools for what be called super-normal children. If education was a machine made thing, with an easily identifiable product coming out of standard raw material, then this might be a more manageable proposition, but this is just what education is not. I am sure that my hon. Friend would hesitate to recommend a new system of selection at 7 plus, yet that is what his proposal would mean.
We already have evidence in this case of the difficulties of assessment at such an early age. Two equally eminent educational psychologists have assessed

this child and their measurements of his ability differ between intelligence quotients 138 and 171. I have no reason to question the integrity of either, but 1 am advised that assessment at such an early age of those with an I.Q. of 140 or better is necessarily very imprecise. This intelligence range would, I think, produce about 25,000 children a year. I am very happy to think that that is so.
It is as the child reaches the age at which secondary education must be decided that a boarding school may become more obviously desirable. I have no means of knowing whether it would be best in this case. It is open to the authority to consider, if the parent wishes, firstly whether Harry Piper could be transferred to secondary education this September. That is almost a year earlier than would normally be the case. Secondly, it is open to the authority to decide, if its first decision is in the affirmative, whether in its view the child should attend one of the authority's own grammar schools or whether it should assist him to attend an independent day or boarding school.
I realise that in much of this we are in the realm of opinion and that judgments may differ widely. I should like my hon. Friend to be assured that his constituent's son has not been and will not be wilfully neglected. His talents and his general welfare are of concern to a good many people. I am sure that the education authority will be ready to discuss the general question of the boy's future at any time the parents care to approach the authority. I hope to hear more of his progress in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.